Returned Councillor’s Election Remains Void for Failing to Disclose Conviction; Supreme Court Dismisses SLP

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard a Special Leave Petition filed by a returned councillor challenging her unseating on the ground of non-disclosure of a past criminal conviction in the affidavit filed with her nomination. The petition arose from an election petition under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 read with the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994; the central question was whether the candidate’s failure to disclose a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the affidavit required by Rule 24‑A rendered her nomination improperly accepted and her election void.

The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the High Court that the petitioner’s affidavit filed on 09.09.2022 failed to disclose a conviction dated 07.08.2018, which was in force on the date of nomination. The bench held that Rule 24‑A mandated disclosure of convictions and that non‑disclosure deprived voters of necessary information, thereby vitiating the validity of the nomination and the election of the returned candidate. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The judgment also reiterated the broader principle that “In our view, democracy cannot survive without free and fair election, without free and fairly informed voters,” emphasizing the electorate’s right to receive material information.

Background The petitioner, Poonam, was elected Councillor of Ward No.5, Nagar Parishad Bhikangaon and received a notification dated 04.10.2022. The first respondent challenged her election, alleging that she had been convicted under Section 138 NI Act on 07.08.2018 and had not disclosed that conviction in the affidavit filed with her nomination as required by Rule 24‑A(1) of the 1994 Rules. The trial Court accepted evidence and found the conviction was in force when nomination was filed, held that the affidavit verification was false, and set aside the election on 17.02.2025 as void under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the Act of 1961. The petitioner’s revision before the High Court was dismissed on similar grounds; the High Court recorded that the petitioner did not testify to explain the omission and affirmed that non‑disclosure of conviction amounted to breach of the Rules and rendered the nomination improperly accepted.

The petitioner contended that the conviction concerned an offence not involving moral turpitude, that it was subsequently set aside in appeal on 30.12.2022, and that the non‑disclosure did not materially affect the election result. The respondent maintained that eligibility was to be determined as on the date of submission of the nomination and that suppression of conviction deprived electors of information to make an informed choice. The Supreme Court found the earlier authorities relied upon by the petitioner distinguishable on facts and statutory framework, reiterated that mandatory disclosure could not be excused on the basis of the nature of the offence, and noted that a by‑election held to fill the vacancy was ordered subject to the outcome of the present proceedings; the Court also observed that the petitioner contested and lost the subsequent by‑election. Applying settled precedents on the electorate’s right to information, the Court dismissed the SLP and declined to exercise discretionary relief under Article 136.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP (C) No.12000 of 2025 Case Title: Poonam v. Dule Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, Advocate