S. RUKMINI MADEGOWDA versus THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 14-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 1
1
S. RUKMINI MADEGOWDA
v.
THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, INDIRA BANERJEE AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – ss.27, 33-
35, 39 – Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979
– Representation of People Act, 1951 – s.123(2) – Conduct of
Elections Rules, 1961 – Election Petition filed by respondent no.4
was allowed, election of the appellant to the Mysore Municipal
Corporation as Councillor was set aside – On appeal, held: A false
declaration w.r.t the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or
dependents, constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact
of such a false declaration on the election of the candidate – It is
undisputed that the appellant suppressed information w.r.t the assets
of her husband – Corrupt Practices have been defined in s.39(2),
KMC Act to include ‘undue influence’ as defined in s.123(2), 1951
RP Act – s.123(2) of the 1951 RP Act came up for interpretation by
this Court in Lok Prahari case, wherein it was held that the non-
disclosure would amount to ‘undue influence’ as defined under the
1951 RP Act – Definition of ‘undue influence’ as used in s.123(2)
of 1951 RP Act is also adopted by s.39(2) of the KMC Act –
Therefore, the non-disclosure of assets in the municipal elections
would also amount to ‘undue influence’ and consequently to ‘corrupt
practice’– Further, the notifications issued by the State Election
Commission were not questioned by the appellant– Rather, she
accepted them as binding on her, and accordingly filed an affidavit–
Thus, the appellant is estopped from questioning the validity of the
notifications or the power of the State Election Commission to issue
the same – Also, there is no legal or normative impediment for the
State Election Commission to issue directions requiring disclosure
of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates
by way of affidavit – In issuing the notification, the Election
Commission has not encroached into the legislative domain of the
Karnataka State Legislature– No ground to interfere with the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
judgment of the High Court affirming the order setting aside the
election of appellant.
Constitution of India – Article 243-ZA(1), 324(1) – Held: The
language and tenor of Article 243-ZA(1) is in pari materia with Article
324(1) – Interpretation of Article 324(1) to confer wide powers on
the Election Commission to issue directions in respect of elections
to Parliament and State legislatures would apply to Article 243-
ZA(1) which has to be construed to confer powers on the State
Election Commission to issue directions related to superintendence,
direction and control of the preparation of electoral roles or for
conduct of elections to municipalities – State Election Commission
has the same powers u/Article 243-K and 243-ZA(1) as the Election
Commission has u/Article 324(1).
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – Karnataka
Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979 – Representation of
People Act, 1951 – Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Held: A
hypertechnical view of the omission to incorporate any specific
provision in the KMC Election Rules, similar to the 1961 Rules,
expressly requiring disclosure of assets, to condone dishonesty and
corrupt practice would be against the spirit of the Constitution and
public interest.
Precedent – Held: A judgment is a precedent for the issue of
law raised and decided – Judgment has to be construed in the
backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which it has been
rendered.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The election of the Appellant is governed by
the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, and the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979 framed
thereunder. A false declaration with regard to the assets of a
candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constitutes corrupt
practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on
the election of the candidate. It may be presumed that a false
declaration impacts the election. [Para 16, 38][10-E-F; 17-A-B]
1.2 A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is
raised and decided. The judgment has to be construed in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment
has been rendered. Words, phrases and sentences in a judgment,
cannot be read out of context. Nor is

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