Non-disclosure of income in affidavit not automatically void election, Supreme Court rules

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the Telangana High Court's dismissal of an election petition. The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate had shown “Nil” in Form 26 for income-tax returns for four of the last five financial years and argued that this omission rendered her nomination improperly accepted and amounted to a corrupt practice.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's conclusion that the omission did not amount to a defect of substantial character or a corrupt practice. The Bench reiterated the legal distinction between disclosure obligations that flow from judicial directions (and rules such as Form 26) and statutory disqualifications under Sections 8/33A of the Act, emphasising that not every technical non-disclosure warranted overturning the people's mandate. The Court noted earlier authority that “Filing of affidavit with blank particulars will render the affidavit nugatory,” but observed that a difference existed where the relevant column was not left blank but filled as “NIL” and where assets and sources of income were otherwise disclosed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “we hold that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years by Respondent No.1, is not a defect of substantial character. Therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected under Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ... no illegality was committed by the Returning Officer in accepting the nomination of the Respondent No.1.” The appeal was dismissed; parties were directed to bear their own costs and the Registry was asked to notify authorities under Section 116C(2) of the Act.

Background The dispute arose after the 2023 Telangana Assembly election in Asifabad (ST) where the returned candidate obtained 83,036 votes against the appellant’s 60,238. The appellant filed Election Petition No.10 of 2024 before the High Court, asserting that the returned candidate had not disclosed income reflected in income-tax returns for FY 2018-19 to FY 2021-22 in Form 26 filed with her nomination, and that she had shown those years as “Nil.” The petitioner alleged omission of honorarium received as Zilla Parishad Chairperson and of an ex-MLA pension and argued improper acceptance of nomination, corrupt practice under Section 123(2) and non-compliance with Sections 33/33A/34 and relevant rules, thereby invoking Section 100 as cause to void the election.

The returned candidate had filed Form 26 disclosing assets, PAN and the FY 2022-23 ITR (showing income), and had provided a Non-drawal Certificate dated 20.06.2024 asserting non-receipt of ex-MLA pension. At scrutiny no candidate’s agent successfully established a formal objection and the Returning Officer accepted the nomination. The High Court found the omission not deliberate and not material to vitiate the election; the petitioner then appealed.

The Supreme Court reviewed the doctrinal matrix built around disclosure obligations—noting precedents including Association for Democratic Reforms, PUCL, Resurgence India and subsequent decisions holding that voters had a “right to know” (derived from Article 19(1)(a)) and that proper completion of Form 26 was important. The Court reiterated that judicial directions and rules required candidates to disclose assets and sources of income, but emphasised the statutory test in Section 36(4) that a Returning Officer should not reject a nomination for a defect that is not of a substantial character. The Bench explained the qualitative distinction between concealment of criminal antecedents (which may trigger statutory disqualification) and technical or partial omissions about assets or tax returns, which required an enquiry into whether the omission was material to the result. On the facts, the Court found there was disclosure of assets and sources of income, production of the latest ITR, absence of evidence of pension drawal, and no proof that undisclosed ITRs hid disproportionate assets. The petitioner examined only himself at trial and adduced no supporting material to show material concealment; accordingly the non-disclosure did not constitute a corrupt practice or improper acceptance that could void the election.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13015 of 2024 (2025 INSC 992) Case Title: Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not available in the judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Not available in the judgment text]