Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Observing that 'non-disclosure of a conviction' constitutes a suppression of material information violating the electorate's fundamental right to make an informed choice, the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 6) upheld the disqualification of a former councillor, who had not disclosed her criminal antecedent in an election affidavit that she was convicted in a cheque dishonor matter and suffered one-year incarceration.

Dismissing the former councillor's appeal, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar underscored the importance of electoral transparency, stating that “non-furnishing information pertaining to criminal antecedents has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.”

The Court added that the election would be deemed illegal, regardless of whether the non-disclosure of the criminal antecedent materially affected the election or not.

“Once it is found that there has been non-disclosure of a previous conviction by a candidate, it creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter. A voter is thus deprived of making an informed and advised choice. It would be a case of suppression/non-disclosure by such candidate, which renders the election void… the question whether the election is materially affected or not would not arise in such a case.”, the court observed.

“It is thus clear that by failing to disclose her conviction under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, the petitioner suppressed material information and thus failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules of 1994. The acceptance of her nomination form has therefore been rightly held to be improper. She being the returned candidate, her election was rendered void. It is thus obvious that on account of such wrongful acceptance of her nomination form, the election was materially affected. This contention of the petitioner also fails.”, the court held.

The appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: POONAM VERSUS DULE SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1068

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv.(arguing counsel) Mr. Inder Dev Singh, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, AOR Mr. Ashish S Sharma, Adv. Mr. Lucky Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR (arguing counsel) Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akarsh Khare, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.