RAVI NAMBOOTHIRI versus K.A. BAIJU & ORS

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 09-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
RAVI NAMBOOTHIRI
v.
K.A. BAIJU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8261-8262 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 09, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – ss.52(1A), 102(1)(ca),
120(2) – Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995
– r.6 – Kerala Police Act, 1960 – ss.38, 52 – Election of the appellant
as Councilor of Ward No.5 of Annamanada Gram Panchayath was
set aside – Correctness of – Held: Appellant admittedly failed to
furnish details of his past conviction in Form No.2A – Therefore,
the ground on which his election was sought to be declared void,
falls squarely within s.102(1)(ca) of the 1994 Act – However, the
offences for which the appellant was convicted were u/s.38 r/w s.52
of the Kerala Police Act – Thus, conviction of the appellant was
actually for the disobedience of the directions issued by a police
officer in connection with holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat
office – Kerala Police Act is actually the successor legislation of
certain police enactments of the colonial era, whose object was to
scuttle the democratic aspirations of the indigenous population –
Once the object behind the provisions of the Kerala Police Act are
understood, it would be clear that neither s.52(1A) r/w r.6 and Form
2A nor s.102(1)(ca) of the Act nor the decisions in Association for
Democratic Reforms, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) or
Krishnamoorthy case can be stretched to such an  extent  that  the
failure  of  the  appellant to disclose his conviction for an offence
under the Kerala Police Act for holding a dharna in front of the
Panchayat office, is taken as a ground for declaring an election
void – District Court and the High Court were wrong in declaring
the election of the appellant to be void on the ground that the failure
of the appellant to disclose in Form 2A, his conviction under the
Kerala Police Act amounted to ‘undue influence on the free exercise
of the electoral right’ and also a violation of ss.52(1A) r/w s.102(1)
(ca) of the 1994 Act – Representation of the People Act, 1951 –
ss.33A, 33B.
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 273
273
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Words and Phrases – “fake”, “forgery” – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As seen from sub--section (1) of Section 102,
the election of a candidate can be declared void, under five
different contingencies. They are: (i) that the returned candidate
was not qualified or was disqualified on the date of his election;
(ii) that any corrupt practice has been committed by the returned
candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the
consent of the returned candidate or his agent; (iii) that any
nomination had been improperly rejected; (iv) that the details
furnished by the elected candidate under sub-section (1A) of
Section 52 were fake; and (v) that the result of the election,  insofar
it  concerns  the  returned  candidate,  has  been materially
affected  either  by  the  improper  acceptance  of  any nomination
or by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the
returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent or
by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the
reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance
with the provisions of this Act or of any Rules or orders made
thereunder. Interestingly, sub--section (1) of Section 102 places
the first four contingencies listed in the preceding paragraph,
{which are relatable to clauses (a), (b), (c) and (ca) of sub--section
(1)} on a different footing than the fifth contingency {relatable to
clause (d)}. The difference between clauses (a), (b), (c) and (ca)
on the one hand and clause (d) of sub--section (1) of Section 102
on the other hand is this. For setting aside an election under any
one or more of the contingencies mentioned in clauses (a), (b),
(c) and (ca), it is not necessary for the Court to find if the result of
the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, has
been materially affected or not. In contrast, for holding an election
to be void on the ground of improper acceptance of any
nomination or the commission of a corrupt practice by any other
agent, but in the interest of the returned candidate or the improper
reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any
vote which is void or non- compliance with the provisions of the
Act, the Rules or orders, the Court must be satisfied that the
result of the elec

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