High Court Sets Aside Bagepalli MLA’s Election for False Declarations in Form 26; Petitioner Not Declared Elected

A single-judge Bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal of the Karnataka High Court heard an election petition challenging the return of the successful candidate from 140‑Bagepalli in the 2023 Assembly polls. The petition by the defeated candidate alleged non‑disclosure and false statements in the returned candidate’s Form 26 affidavit and sought (i) to set aside the election and (ii) to have the petitioner declared duly elected.

The court held that the returned candidate had committed corrupt practice by failing to disclose material facts in his affidavit and by making false declarations, and therefore set aside his election. The court found proved four principal defects: non‑disclosure of business concerns and corresponding current account balances of the returned candidate and his wife; non‑disclosure of a parcel of agricultural land (2 acres 22 guntas in Sy. No.21); false statements as to the nature and approximate market value of certain converted lands (including Sy. No.164 and Sy. Nos.173–174, 138/2, 158/2, 172 and 157); and a deliberate “Nil” declaration as to municipal/property‑tax dues though substantial dues remained unpaid before being belatedly discharged. The court said that such falsehoods and suppressions amounted to “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “False statement or a false declaration, that too made on oath, inherently carries with it corrupt, deceitful, dishonest and fraudulent intent, which once proved, neither requires further probe of its innocence nor the need of testing the same through the lens of substantiality.” The court declined to declare the petitioner elected, noting that there were multiple candidates and the petitioner had not pleaded or proved the specific numerical effect required under Section 101 to justify declaring him the returned candidate; instead it directed communication of the verdict to the Speaker and Election Commission.

Background

The petitioner, who contested the 10 May 2023 election from 140‑Bagepalli as a BJP candidate and lost by a margin of 19,179 votes to the returned candidate from the Indian National Congress, filed the petition under Sections 80, 81, 100, 101 read with Section 123 of the R.P. Act. He alleged extensive non‑disclosure and false information in the respondent’s Form 26 affidavit — including omission of up‑to‑date account balances, non‑disclosure of proprietorship and company interests, undisclosed loans, incorrect or omitted survey numbers and converted land shown as agricultural, undervaluation of properties, non‑disclosure of GST and municipal dues, and non‑disclosure of company financials of Bhagini Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. The respondent denied deliberate suppression, pleaded substantial compliance, and attributed some errors to inadvertence or pending inter‑se family disputes; he also relied on the contention that non‑compliance in valuation or timing of account balances was not necessarily fatal.

The High Court framed issues on whether false declaration and non‑disclosure were proved, whether they constituted corrupt practice under Section 123 and whether there was substantial compliance. After trial evidence (petitioner examined himself and a BBMP official; respondent examined himself), the court accepted that several specific concealments and false declarations were proved and that those amounted to corrupt practice/“undue influence” within Section 123(2). However, the court found the petitioner’s claim for declaration as duly elected unsustainable because he had failed to plead and prove the precise effect of the tainted votes as required by Section 101; there were more than two candidates and no material showing that the tainted votes, when excluded, would have given the petitioner a majority. The petition was therefore partly allowed: the respondent’s election was set aside, but the petitioner was not declared elected; the Registry was ordered to inform the Speaker and the Election Commission.

Case Details: Case No.: ELECTION PETITION No.4 OF 2023 Case Title: C. Muniraju v. S. N. Subbareddy & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Smt. Nalina Mayegowda, Senior Advocate; Sri. Manjunatha Hiral, Mrs. Arpitha Ananthram H M, Ms. Anusha B. Reddy, Mr. Akshay Mithantaya (Advocates) For the Respondent(s): Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate; Sri. D.P. Mahesh (Counsel for R1); R2, R3, R4, R6, R7, R9, R12 and R13 served but unrepresented.