The Supreme Court upheld a Telangana High Court order rejecting an application by a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MP who sought to dismiss a petition challenging his election. The election of Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil from the Zaheerabad Lok Sabha constituency was challenged by Congress candidate K Madan Mohan Rao in the high court. Rao claimed that Patil did not disclose pending cases and convictions against him in his election affidavit, thereby withholding crucial information from voters.
Patil argued that under the Representation of People Act, 1951, there was no requirement to disclose “so-called” criminal cases since he had not been sentenced to imprisonment exceeding one year.
The bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar dismissed Patil’s appeal, emphasizing that whether the existence of a criminal case without framed charges or a non-serious offense carrying a short prison sentence constitutes material facts that are contested, cannot be determined without a full-fledged trial. They stated that the withholding of information and non-compliance with statutory requirements must be evaluated cumulatively, and it is not for the court to prejudge the significance of such information.
The Supreme Court referred to Article 326 of the Constitution, highlighting the right to vote as a crucial aspect of democracy and a precious right resulting from the struggle for freedom and self-governance. While democracy is an essential feature of the Constitution, the right to vote has not been officially recognized as a Fundamental Right, though it is considered a statutory right.
The court recognized that the right of voters to know about a candidate’s complete background has evolved through court decisions, adding an important dimension to constitutional jurisprudence.
The court reasoned that accepting Patil’s contentions would deny a full-fledged trial based on the acknowledgment that material facts were not suppressed.
In the 2019 Lok Sabha election, Patil defeated Rao by a margin of 6,229 votes. Rao alleged in his election petition that Patil had not disclosed information about a case registered in Jharkhand’s Garhwa district against a business firm owned by Patil and his family members, which was not mentioned in his nomination form.
