MLA's "Not Applicable" in Criminal Antecedents Column Despite Nine Registered Cases: MP High Court Refuses to Dismiss Election Petition at Threshold

"Voters Have a Fundamental Right Flowing From Article 19(1)(a) to Know the Antecedents of the Candidate", Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has refused to dismiss at the threshold an election petition challenging the election of a returned candidate to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Semariya-69 Constituency, holding that allegations of non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, suppression of a bank loan liability, and concealment of the names of private companies from which salary was drawn prima facie disclose a cause of action warranting a full trial.

Justice Vinay Saraf, deciding the matter on March 20, 2026, dismissed the returned candidate's application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the election petition, and granted four weeks to file the written statement.

The court was called upon to determine the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC in the context of election petitions; whether an allegation of writing "Not Applicable" in the criminal antecedents column of Form 26 despite nine prior registered cases prima facie discloses a cause of action; whether the respondent's defences — acquittal in all nine cases, the ICICI loan belonging to a partnership firm, and resignation from company directorships — could be considered at this stage; and whether the election petition satisfied the requirement of "material facts" under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.

The Iron Rule of Order 7 Rule 11 — Only the Plaint Counts, Not the Defence

The court began by laying down the governing legal framework with precision. Under Order 7 Rule 11(a), the court's only task is to examine the averments in the plaint read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, taken as a whole without addition or subtraction, entirely ignoring the defendant's defence. Relying on the Supreme Court's authoritative exposition in Dahiben v. Arvind Bhai, (2020) 7 SCC 366, the court held: "The pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration." The power under this provision is drastic, and its conditions must be strictly adhered to. If the allegations in the petition prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry into whether those allegations are true.

"Not Applicable" Despite Nine Criminal Cases — Prima Facie Cause of Action Made Out

The court found that it was undisputed that several criminal cases had been registered against the returned candidate in the past. Yet, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Form 26 affidavit accompanying his nomination paper — which require disclosure of criminal antecedents — the respondent simply wrote "Not Applicable." The petitioner had filed the list of nine criminal cases obtained under the Right to Information Act as Annexure P-6 to the election petition, which the court found directly fortified the allegation.

The respondent's argument — that he had been acquitted in all nine cases and therefore had no obligation to disclose them — was held to be entirely irrelevant at this stage. "The documents filed by the respondent in his favour are not relevant for the purpose of examining the plaint for the purpose of deciding the issue whether the claim discloses the cause of action or not." The question of acquittal, the court held, is squarely a matter of defence to be tested at trial.

The court grounded this finding in the fundamental rights dimension of electoral disclosure, relying on Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, and Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India, (2014) 14 SCC 189. As the Supreme Court had summarised in Resurgence India: "The right to know about the candidate is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution." The court also relied on Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, (2015) 3 SCC 467, which held that non-disclosure of material information in the affidavit amounts to corrupt practice once established, entitling the High Court to declare the election void.

Bank Loan of Rs. 50 Lakh — Borrower's Name on Statement, Defence Is for Trial

On the allegation of suppression of outstanding financial liability, the petitioner had produced directly from ICICI Bank a loan account statement showing that Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra was the borrower of a term loan sanctioned on September 17, 2023, with Rs. 50,87,672 outstanding as on January 10, 2023 — a liability conspicuously absent from the nomination affidavit, which disclosed only a State Bank of India liability.

The respondent's explanation — that the loan was availed by a partnership firm of which he was a partner until he retired in 2008, not by him personally — was rejected as irrelevant at this stage. "The explanation submitted by the returned candidate may be a good defence during the trial, but it cannot be accepted at this stage as the Bank itself has issued the copy of the loan account statement, in which the name of the returned candidate, Mr. Abhay Mishra, has been shown as borrower. This Court is considering the matter only for the purpose of examining whether it discloses the cause of action or not." The allegation was held to constitute a prima facie triable issue.

Non-Disclosure of Company Names and Disqualification Allegation — Also Triable

The court similarly declined to accept the respondent's defences on the third and fourth grounds. The respondent had disclosed in his nomination form that he earned salary from "Private Limited Companies" but deliberately did not name those companies. The respondent's defence that he had resigned from the directorships well before filing his nomination, with intimation duly recorded on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website, was again held to be a matter for trial. Equally, the allegation of disqualification under Section 9(a) of the RP Act — that a subsisting contract existed between a company in which he held shares and the PWD/Road Development Corporation — required evidence and could not be decided at the threshold stage.

Election Petition Satisfies Section 83 Requirements

Surveying the law on material facts under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act through Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, (2024) 18 SCC 592, and Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541, the court held that the election petition contained a concise statement of material facts supported by specific documents and a duly sworn affidavit in Form 25 under Rule 94(A) of the Rules. "The petitioner has specifically stated in the election petition that the entire facts stated in the election petition are true to the knowledge of the petitioner and the available documents." The court held the petition was neither vague nor vexatious, and could not be characterised as clever drafting creating the illusion of a cause of action.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the application for rejection of the election petition and directed the respondent-returned candidate to file his written statement within four weeks.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2026