AJMERA SHYAM versus SMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1789 · Decided: 14-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1789 : 2025 INSC 992
Ajmera Shyam  
v. 
Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 13015 of 2024)
14 August 2025
[Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the non-mentioning of the income shown 
in the income tax return for four financial years in the Form 26 
Affidavit and its portrayal as “Nil” by the respondent no.1-returned 
candidate would amount to non-disclosure, thereby rendering the 
acceptance of his nomination as improper and making her election 
liable to be declared void u/s.100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1951; whether such non-disclosure constitutes a 
corrupt practice, rendering her election liable to be declared void 
u/s.100(1)(b); and does such non-disclosure amount to a violation 
of r.4A of the Rules, despite mentioning the assets and liabilities, 
source of income, and profession, thereby materially affecting the 
election of Respondent No. 1 and warranting the voiding of her 
election u/s.100(1)(d)(iv).
Headnotes†
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss.100(1)(b),  
100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv) – Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – 
r.4A – Grounds for declaring election to be void – Disclosure of 
information about assets of the candidates – Election petition 
by the appellant-unsuccessful candidate, challenging the 
election of the respondent No. 1 as MLA, as void – Allegations 
that the respondent No.1, while submitting the Form 26 
Affidavit, at the time of filing the nomination paper, did not 
disclose her income shown in the income tax returns for four 
completed financial years out of the last five financial years, 
the same was shown as Nil; and that respondent No. 1 did 
not disclose her income from honorarium and pension, thus, 
the nomination form of the respondent No.1 was improperly 
accepted by the Returning Officer – High Court dismissed the 
Election Petition – Correctness:
* Author
1790
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed 
certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush 
to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and 
fastidious approach, unless it is shown that such concealment 
or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature 
that it could have influenced the election result – On facts, not 
demonstrated that concealment or non-disclosure of certain 
information related to assets was of a substantial nature that 
could have materially affected the result of the election of the 
returned candidate – Non-disclosure of income in the income tax 
return for four financial years by respondent No.1, not a defect of 
substantial character, thus, no illegality committed by the Returning 
Officer in accepting the nomination of the respondent No.1 – Penal 
clause cannot be invoked to invalidate respondent No.1’s election 
u/s.100(1)(d)(i) on the ground that the nomination of Respondent 
No.1 was improperly accepted – Non-disclosure of income not 
of a substantial nature to be considered a corrupt practice within 
the meaning of s.123 (2), and thus, the election of respondent 
No.1 cannot be rendered void u/s.100(1)(b) – It cannot be also 
said that the Respondent No.1 did not comply with the relevant 
provisions of the Act or any rule or order made under the Act, to 
attract the provisions of s.100(1)(d)(iv) – Respondent no. 1 is a 
wellknown political figure in her Constituency and no allegation 
of malpractice or corrupt practices or providing false information 
by her – Respondent No.1 had already disclosed her and her 
spouse’s assets, both movable and immovable, source of income, 
and profession – In view thereof, non-disclosure of the tax return 
for certain financial years, although a technical defect under the 
rules, cannot be considered to be a defect of significant importance 
as it does not in any manner amount to hiding the assets – It does 
not amount to misrepresentation or non-disclosure of assets which 
is of consequence – Nothing has been shown by the election 
petitioner about any disproportionately higher income vis-à-vis the 
sources of income in respect of the period for which the income 
tax returns had not been filed – Respondent No.1 had not left the 
relevant column in the Affidavit blank, which would have made the 
nomination paper fatally defective and liable to be rejected – Not a 
case of providing false information or engaging in disinformation, 
but rather f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.