Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Failing to disclose assets or concealing assets of a candidate, their spouse, or dependents constitutes a corrupt practice ruled the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Abida Begum v. Mohd Ismail & Ors.

Background

• The present matter in the High Court relates to a writ petition filed by Abida Begum under Articles 226 and 227 of the COI praying to set aside the judgement passed by Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Shahapur (Trial Court).
• The original petition was filed by Mohammed Ismail in the Trial Court challenging Abida Begum's election on the ground that she had failed to disclose her and her husband's assets.
• It was further contended that the said suppression would amount to a corrupt practice by Abida Begum in terms of Section 19(1)(b) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
• The trial court quashed the election of the candidate, Abida Begum, to Gram Panchayat.
• Abida Begum hence appealed to High Court and contended that Mohammed Ismail failed to make all the contestants have to be made a party therefore Trial Court ought to have dismissed the petition.
• The High Court agreed with Begum's contention that under Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and said that all the electoral contestants should have been made party.
• The High Court also pointed out that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the election petition in limine (at the beginning).

Court’s Observations

A Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj made following observations:

• Non-disclosure of assets could result in the disqualification of the candidate from participating in a panchayat election under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
• Suppression of such information by itself is enough to attract disqualification and that there is no requirement to prove that the suppression resulted in an adverse impact on the election prospects of another candidate.

Case Law

The Apex Court in the matter of Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S.N.Shukla v. Union of India & Others (2018) made following observations:

• It was made mandatory for candidates contesting elections and their spouses & dependents to declare their assets and source of income at the time of nomination.
• The obligation of a candidate to disclose both his assets and the source of income is a part of the Fundamental Right of citizens to know, under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Legal Provision

Constitution of India, 1950

Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. —

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993

• Section 15 - Election petition -

(2) A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition -

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or of any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates.

• Section 19 - Grounds for declaring election to be void -

(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) if the Designated Court is of opinion -

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent.