The central question was whether Kova Laxmi’s non-disclosure of income tax return details for four out of the last five financial years in her Form 26 Affidavit constituted, Improper acceptance of her nomination, A corrupt practice, Non-compliance with the Representation of People Act, 1951 (the “Act”) and its rules, thereby rendering her election void under Section 100 of the Act.
The Appellant’s election petition alleged that Kova Laxmi failed to disclose her income as shown in income tax returns for FY 2018-2019 to FY 2021-2022 in her Form 26 Affidavit, stating “Nil” for these years.
It was also alleged that she did not disclose income from her monthly honorarium as Chairperson of Kumuram Bheem Zilla Parishad and her Ex-Legislator’s Pension.
The Appellant contended these non-disclosures amounted to improper acceptance of nomination, a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Act, and non-compliance with Sections 33, 33A, and 34 of the Act, justifying her election being declared void.
Respondent No. 1’s Defense: Kova Laxmi admitted not providing income for the four financial years but argued:
She had disclosed all her movable and immovable assets, PAN details, occupation, and source of income.
She claimed the non-disclosure was not a material defect or of a substantial character and did not affect the election outcome.
She had submitted her latest income tax returns for FY 2022-23 and stated there was no deliberate suppression to mislead voters.
Regarding the Ex-MLA pension, she asserted she did not receive it after becoming Zilla Parishad Chairperson and provided a Non-drawal Certificate.
She also disclosed her source of income as honorarium from her role as Zilla Parishad Chairperson, even if the exact amount was not specified.
Significantly, the Appellant did not raise any objection regarding these alleged defects during the nomination scrutiny process before the Returning Officer, thereby being estopped from raising them later.
She further argued the election petition was not maintainable as it failed to demonstrate how the outcome was materially affected and did not comply with Section 83 of the Act concerning affidavits for corrupt practices [6.7].
Law involved and Judicial Precedents
The Court’s analysis delved into the right to information in electoral processes, established as an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Key precedents include:
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India (2002): Mandated disclosure of criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications, leading to the insertion of Section 33A and Rule 4A in the Act.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003): Reaffirmed ADR, emphasizing that a well-informed electorate is the foundation of a healthy democracy and the voter’s right to know is fundamental. Section 33B, which sought to limit disclosure, was struck down. The purpose of asset disclosure is primarily to check misuse of public office for self-enrichment, not to evaluate financial soundness.
Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India (2014): Directed that filing an affidavit with blank particulars renders it nugatory, and such nominations are fit to be rejected by the Returning Officer. Candidates must explicitly mark “NIL” or “Not Applicable”.
Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) and S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission (2022): Held that non-disclosure or false declaration of assets and sources of income can constitute a corrupt practice (undue influence).
Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang (2024): Emphasized that not every defect in nomination renders its acceptance improper. Courts must distinguish between “substantial issues” and “insubstantial issues”. Section 36(4) of the Act supports this by stating a nomination cannot be rejected for a defect that is “not of a substantial character” [40, 57, 10.11].
Holding:
The Court acknowledged that Kova Laxmi did not provide full income details for four financial years and marked them “Nil,” which constitutes a violation of Rule 4A, making the affidavit defective [10.4]. However, the Court made a crucial distinction between different types of disclosures:
Criminal antecedents are considered critical for maintaining the purity of the electoral process and must be scrupulously adhered to, reflecting a strict approach.
Asset and educational qualification disclosures, while important, are seen as supplementary requirements. Their non-disclosure allows for consideration of whether the defect is of substantial or inconsequential nature, implying a more flexible approach.
Applying this distinction, the Court found:
The non-disclosure of income tax returns for four years, marked as “Nil,” was not a defect of substantial character. Kova Laxmi had disclosed her assets (movable and immovable), source of income, and profession, about which there was no significant dispute. The Income Tax Return merely provides a fiscal framework for assets and income, and its omission was not considered “hiding the assets” since the assets themselves and sources of income were disclosed.
The Appellant failed to demonstrate any disproportionately higher income or hidden wealth that would have been revealed by the missing ITRs .
Allegations regarding honorarium income were dismissed because Kova Laxmi had disclosed her occupation as Zilla Parishad Chairperson and her source of income as honorarium, even without specifying the amount [10.21, 11.5].
The allegation regarding Ex-MLA pension was dismissed as Kova Laxmi provided a certificate confirming non-drawal, which was not rebutted [10.20, 11.5].
The Court noted the Appellant’s failure to raise any objection during the scrutiny of nomination papers, despite deficiencies being easily ascertainable, which weighed against the bona fides of the election petition [10.30].
The Court underscored that overturning an election result, which reflects the will of the people (“Vox Populi, Vox Dei”), should be done with utmost caution and only for gross irregularities that undermine electoral integrity, not for minor or technical defects that do not materially affect the outcome.
The Supreme Court held that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years was not a defect of substantial character. Therefore, her nomination was properly accepted, and her election cannot be declared void on the grounds of improper acceptance under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act, nor does it constitute a corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b), or non-compliance under Section 100(1)(d)(iv).
AJMERA SHYAM V. KOVA LAXMI
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 992 (DoJ 14-08-2025)
