SATISH UKEY versus DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 01-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
SATISH UKEY
v.
DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2019)
OCTOBER 01, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., DEEPAK GUPTA AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951:
ss. 33A and 125A – Rules 4A r/w Form 26 of Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 – Criminal complaint against MLA – Alleging
infraction of the provision u/s 125-A as the MLA had not mentioned
in Form 26 two criminal cases in which cognizance was taken
against him – Complaint dismissed by trial court – Order affirmed
by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Form 26
mandates disclosure of information by the contesting candidate of
not only case(s) in which charges have been framed but also case(s)
in which cognizance has been taken by the Court – Certain Letters
written by Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral
Officers of all the States and UTs also show that contesting
candidate is mandated to furnish information with regard to cases
in which cognizance is taken and that any fake declaration or
concealment in the affidavit prescribed in Form 26 as required
u/s. 33-A(2), will attract the provision of s. 125-A – Cumulative
reading of ss. 33-A and r. 4A and Form 26 alongwith the letters
from the Election Commissioner, makes it clear that information to
be furnished u/s. 33-A includes not only information contained in
clauses (i) and (ii) of s. 33-A (1), but also the information made
under the Act or the rules made thereunder and such information
should be furnished in Form 26 – As per the averment in the
complaint, the criminal cases were deliberately not mentioned in
Form 26 – Hence, orders of courts below dismissing the complaint
is not tenable – Complaint to be considered afresh by trial court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Consequent to the directions issued in
*Association for Democratic Reforms case, Section 33-A was
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 524
524
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
inserted into Representation of the People Act, 1951 vide the
Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002.
Section 33-A(1), as worded and drafted, required furnishing of
the information of cases where (i) the person filing the
nomination has been convicted; and (ii) where charges have been
framed against the person filing the nomination but excluded
cases where cognizance had been taken.  This was despite the
order of this Court, to the effect that details of case(s) of which
cognizance has been taken should also be furnished. [Paras 8
and 9] [531-A-G-H]
People’s Union for civil Liberties (PUCL) and Ors. v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 399 :
[2003] 3 SCR  75 ; *Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. (2002)
5 SCC 294 : [2002] 3 SCR 696  – relied on.
2. Whether the provisions of Section 125-A of the 1951
Act would be applicable in the present case, to make the first
respondent liable in law, would require the Court to decide on
the true meaning and purport of the following phrases found in
Section 125-A of the 1951 Act i.e. (a) fails to furnish information
relating to sub-section (1) of Section 33-A; (b) conceals any
information; (c) in his nomination paper delivered under sub-
section (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to
be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33-A. To find out
the true meaning and purport of the aforesaid phrases, the crucial
question that has to be answered is whether the word
‘information’ as mentioned in Section 33-A of the 1951 Act
means only such information as mentioned in clause (i) and (ii)
of Section 33-A(1) or whether along with the said information a
candidate is also required to furnish such other information as
required under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The
consequential question that would arise is whether in the
affidavit required to be filed under sub-section (2) of Section 33-
A information is to be given as required in terms of the affidavit
which is prescribed by Form-26 of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961 or such information is confined to what is required to be
submitted under Section 33-A (1) (i) and (ii).  [Paras 12 and 13]
[535-C-G]
3. Rule 4-A of 1961 Rules which was inserted by
S.O.935(E), dated 3.9.2002 with effect from 3.9.2002 provides
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
for form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination
paper.

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