The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the failure to disclose assets or the act of concealing assets belonging to a candidate, their spouse, or dependents constitutes a corrupt practice.
A single bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that such actions could lead to the disqualification of the candidate from participating in a panchayat election under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act.
The Court emphasized that the act of suppression itself is adequate to trigger disqualification, without the need to prove that such suppression influenced the election outcome in favor of another candidate.
“The mere suppression is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 19(1)(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act,” noted the bench, adding that the election petitioner need not specifically allege or demonstrate adverse impact on another candidate’s election prospects.
This viewpoint emerged while addressing a challenge to an October 2022 trial court ruling that invalidated the election of candidate Abida Begum to a gram panchayat. The petitioner, Mohammed Ismail, had contested Begum’s election on the grounds of her failure to disclose her and her husband’s assets, arguing that this suppression amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 19(1)(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act.
Subsequently, Abida Begum challenged the trial court’s decision in Ismail’s election petition before the High Court. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, highlighting the significance of maintaining the integrity of elections at all levels, be it for the Union Parliament, State Legislature, Municipal Corporation, or Panchayat.
The Court emphasized that disclosure of assets is mandatory for the candidate, their spouse, and other dependent members. “Suppressio veri” (suppression of truth) and “suggestio falsi” (suggestion of falsehood) regarding assets fall under the purview of Section 19(1)(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act, the Court further clarified.
In this instance, the Court held that it was the petitioner’s duty to reveal her assets, her husband’s assets, and those of other dependent members. Failure to disclose such information would amount to undue influence and a corrupt practice, the Court determined.
Nonetheless, the Court granted relief to Abida Begum by virtue of Ismail’s failure to include all contesting candidates as parties to the election case proceedings. The High Court concurred with Begum’s argument that Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 necessitated the inclusion of all electoral contestants if Ismail sought a declaration as the successful or returned candidate.
The High Court opined that the trial court should have dismissed the election petition at the outset, as all contesting candidates were not parties to the case.
However, the Court acknowledged the practical challenges inherent in such cases. Given the multiple candidates vying in elections, it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the successful candidate.
“Even if there are three candidates, the matter could be difficult inasmuch as it cannot be ascertained as to in whose favour the votes polled by the returning candidate would have to be apportioned,” remarked the judge.
In light of these complexities, Justice Govindraj has directed the Law Commission of India to receive a copy of the order for further examination of this aspect.
