Court rules non-disclosure of assets and liabilities in election affidavit amounts to corrupt practice under Representation of People Act, 1951; however, declaration of petitioner as elected not granted due to multiple candidates and insufficient proof.
In a significant judgment dated February 16, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M.G.S. Kamal, ruled that the election of Sri. S.N. Subbareddy alias Chinnakayalapalli (Respondent No.1), an Indian National Congress candidate from the 140-Bagepalli Assembly Constituency in the 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections held on May 10, 2023, was to be set aside. The petitioner, Sri. C. Muniraju of the Bharatiya Janata Party, had challenged the election on grounds of false declaration and non-disclosure of assets, liabilities, and sources of income in the Form 26 Affidavit filed along with nomination papers.
The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 deliberately withheld material information regarding his and his family's assets, including multiple business entities, properties, and statutory dues such as property tax, and that such concealment constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act). Specifically, the petitioner pointed to non-disclosure of business entities and corresponding current account balances, omission of ownership of certain agricultural lands, undervaluation and misclassification of property types, and false declarations of ‘nil’ property tax dues despite evidence of substantial outstanding payments.
The Respondent denied all allegations, contending substantial compliance with disclosure norms and asserting that the Returning Officer properly accepted his nomination after scrutiny. He also argued that non-disclosure of assets and liabilities was not a ground for setting aside election under the R.P. Act and that non-payment of dues was either inadvertent or not due to absence of demand notices.
After examining voluminous evidence and pleadings, the Court found that:
1. There was non-disclosure of key business entities and their corresponding current account balances, which were admitted sources of income for Respondent No.1 and his wife.
2. Certain agricultural lands owned by Respondent No.1 were not disclosed, and some properties that had been converted to non-agricultural/commercial use were falsely declared as agricultural land, affecting the valuation.
3. Property tax dues amounting to over Rs. 1.33 crore were not disclosed in the affidavit, despite being statutory liabilities, and were paid belatedly only after the election.
4. These false declarations and non-disclosures were not mere technical oversights but of substantial character, amounting to corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the R.P. Act, which defines undue influence including interference with free exercise of electoral rights.
The Court referenced binding Supreme Court precedents, including Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018), S. Rukmini Madegowda v. Karnataka State Election Commission (2022), and Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi (2025), which clarified that non-disclosure or false declaration of assets and liabilities by candidates constitutes corrupt practice, rendering the election void.
However, the Court declined to declare the petitioner as duly elected under Section 101 of the R.P. Act. It noted that the election was contested by multiple candidates (14 in total), and the petitioner failed to provide specific pleadings or evidence demonstrating how many votes were obtained by the respondent through corrupt practice or that these votes would have otherwise gone to the petitioner. The Court emphasized the settled legal principle that such relief to declare the petitioner elected is generally permissible only where there are two candidates or where there is clear proof of votes affected by corrupt practice.
Regarding the additional issue of whether the Returning Officer improperly accepted the respondent’s nomination, the Court held that the Returning Officer’s role is limited to verifying that the Form 26 Affidavit is filled and does not extend to in-depth scrutiny of the veracity of declarations at the nomination stage.
Consequently, the Court partly allowed the petition:
- The election of Respondent No.1 was declared void due to corrupt practice.
- The relief to declare the petitioner as duly elected was rejected.
- The Court ordered communication of the order to the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Election Commission as per statutory requirements.
This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of truthful and complete disclosure of assets and liabilities by candidates, highlighting the serious consequences of false declarations in the electoral process, while also underscoring the need for specific pleadings and evidence when seeking to be declared elected in place of a disqualified candidate.
Bottom Line:
Representation of People Act, 1951 - False declaration and non-disclosure of assets, liabilities, and sources of income in Form 26 Affidavit by an elected candidate amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Act, leading to the election being declared void. However, declaration of the petitioner as elected is not permissible when there are multiple candidates and insufficient specific pleadings or proof regarding corrupt practices affecting the election result.
Statutory provision(s): Representation of People Act, 1951 Sections 33, 33A, 36, 79, 83, 84, 100, 101, 103, 123; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 Rule 4A; CGST Act, 2017 Sections 44, 47; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 Sections 144, 147, 148; Indian Evidence Act Section 65B
