KARIKHO KRI versus NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 09-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 17 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 394 : 2024 INSC 289
Karikho Kri 
v. 
Nuney Tayang and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023)
09 April 2024
[Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In the year 2019, appellant-KK an independent candidate emerged 
victorious in Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 44 Tezu 
(ST) Assembly Constituency. The issue arising for consideration 
is as to the validity of the High Court’s findings that grounds u/ss. 
100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1951 were established, warranting invalidation of 
the election of KK.
Headnotes
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 100(1)(b), 100(1)
(d)(i), 123 – Election – Filing of nomination – Submission of 
material particulars – Non-disclosure of three vehicles – High 
Court held non-disclosure of vehicles as corrupt practice – 
Correctness:
Held: The High Court was of opinion that appellant’s failure 
to disclose the three vehicles (two scooty and van), that stood 
registered in the names of his dependent family members, amounted 
to a corrupt practice – The High Court assumed that the non-
disclosure of a vehicle registered in the name of a candidate or 
his dependent family members was sufficient in itself to constitute 
undue influence – One scooty was in name of wife of the appellant, 
DW5 deposed that he had taken this vehicle as scrap and sold 
it to DW6 – DW6 confirmed the same – In relation to other two 
vehicles in question, there were actual documents of conveyance 
and also proof of the requisite forms prescribed under the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 being duly filled in by wife and son of appellant 
– Form No. 29, relating to notice of ownership transfer of a vehicle 
by the registered owner, viz., the transferor, was issued in respect 
of each of these vehicles but despite the same, the transferees 
did not do the needful to get their own names registered as the 
owners – Once it is accepted that the three vehicles in question 
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
395
Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang and Another
were either gifted or sold before the filing of the nomination by 
KK, the said vehicles cannot be considered to be still owned by 
KK’s wife and son for purposes other than those covered by the 
Act of 1988 – However, the High Court did not take note of this 
distinguishing factor in the case on hand – The vehicles were 
not owned and possessed in praesenti by the dependent family 
members of KK at the time of the filing of his nomination – Non-
disclosure of three vehicles cannot be held against KK – Such 
non-disclosure cannot be treated as an attempt on his part to 
unduly influence the voters, thereby inviting the wrath of Section 
123(2) of the Act of 1951. [Paras 20,21,22,25,27,28]
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Election – Filing of 
nomination – Non-disclosure of three vehicles – Vehicles sold/
gifted – The High Court was of the opinion that, notwithstanding 
vehicles were sold/gifted, these vehicles continued to stand 
in the names of the dependent wife and son of KK – In 
consequence, upon considering the provisions of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the decision of the Supreme Court in 
Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others [2018] 2 SCR 572, 
it was held that vehicles were owned by the dependent wife 
and son of KK but they were not disclosed in the Affidavit in 
Form No. 26 filed by him – Correctness:
Held: The High Court overlooked the fact that the above judgment 
(Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others) was rendered in the 
context of and for the purposes of the Act of 1988 and not for 
general application – The judgment itself made it clear that despite 
the sale/transfer of the vehicle in question, a claimant or claimants 
should not be made to run from pillar to post to find out who was 
the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident, if the 
sale/transfer was not carried out in their books by the authorities 
concerned by registering the name of the subsequent owner, be 
it for whatever reason – Further, vehicles being goods, their sale 
would be covered by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, 
and the same make it clear that conveyance of ownership of the 
vehicle would stand concluded upon execution of the document of 
sale/transfer and registration of the new owner by the authorities 
concerned would be a post-sale event – Mere failure to get 
registered the name of the new owner of an already registered 
vehicle does not mean t

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