SRI MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ @ PR!THVIRAJ SINGH . versus SHRI PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 28-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 687 
SRI MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ @ PR!THVIRAJ SINGH . 
A 
v. 
SHRI PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 2649 of2016) 
OCTOBER 28, 20 I 6 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Legislative Assembly election - Only two candidates contesting 
the election in the constituency - Election petition by the candidate 
who lost the election, challenging the election of returned 
candidate - Alleging false declaration as regards his educational 
qualification and improper acceptance of his nomination - Election 
petitioner also sought that he should be declared elected - High 
Court declared the election of the returned candidate as void -
However, the High Court refused to declare the election petitioner 
as elected - Cross-appeal by the election petitioner and the returned 
candidate - Held: The informatio11 provided by the returned 
candidate in Form 26 regarding his educational qualification would 
amount to false declaration - The false declaration regarding 
educational qualification is of substantial character - Mere finding 
. that there has been an improper acceptance of the ·nomination is 
not sufficient for a declaration that the election is void uls. 
JOO(l}(d) - There has to be further proof and pleading that the 
result of the returned candidate was materially affected - But such 
proof is not required if there are only two candidates bf the fray -
Jn the present case, it was not necessmy for the election petitioner 
to prove that result of the election, in so far as it concerned the 
returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper 
acceptance of his nomination as there were only two candidates 
contesting the election - The High Court in exercise of its 
discretionary powe1; rightly refused to declare the election petitioner 
as elected after the election of the returned candidate was declared 
void - The election petitioner since had contested the election on 
behalf of Nationalist Congress Party and after result of the election 
having joined Bhartiya Jania Party was not entitled for such 
declaration - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - ss.JOO(l)(d), 
687 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
36(4), 53(2) and 80A. 
High Court - Inherent powers - Exercise of - While hearing 
election petition - Held: High Court hearing an election petition is 
not an 'authority• and it remains the High Court while trying an 
election petition - Inherent powers of High court are not taken 
B 
away while adjudicating election disputes - Representation of the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
People Act, 1951 - ss. 53(2) and 80A. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 2016: 
1.1 The Election Commission of India issued a press note 
on 28.06.2002 in which there was a reference to the judgment of 
this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 
in which it was held that information on five aspects has to be 
provided to the voter. One of the five aspects pertains to the 
educational qualification of the candidates. An order was issued 
by the Election Commission of India on 28.06.2002 directing that 
full and complete information relating to the five aspects which 
were mentioned in the judgment has to be furnished. Providing 
incomplete information or suppression of material information 
on any of the five aspects was to be treated as a defect of 
substantial character by the Returning Officers. [Para 15)(699-
E-F] 
1.2 Every voter has a fundamental right to know about the 
educational qualification of a candidate. It is also clear from the 
provisions of the Act, Rules and Form 26 that there is a duty cast 
on the candidates to give correct information about their 
educational qualifications.[Para l 7][700-B-C] 
1.3 The declaration relating to educational qualification 
of the appellant in the affidavit cannot be called a clerical error. 
It is not an error committed once. Since 2008, the Appellant was 
making the statement that he has an MBA degree. The 
information provided by him in the affidavit filed in Form 26 would 
amount to a false declaration. He was given an opportunity by 
the Returning Officer to produce the relevant document in 
support of his declaration. At least at that point of time he should 
SRI MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ@PRITHVIRAJ SINGH v. SHRI 
689 
PUKHREMSHARATCHANDRASINGH 
have informed the Returning Officer that an error crept into the 
A 
declaration. He did not do so. The false 

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