False Affidavit - The Legal Chamber

No Hiding Criminal Past: Supreme Court Says Undisclosed Conviction Makes Election Null & Void

20Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Hiding Criminal Past: Supreme Court Says Undisclosed Conviction Makes Election Null & Void

The Supreme Court held that a candidate's non-disclosure of a subsisting criminal conviction in the mandatory election affidavit, as required under Rule 24-A of the relevant rules, constitutes a fundamental breach. This failure vitiates the nomination process itself, rendering the election void under Section 22(1)(d) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, as it violates the voters' constitutional right to informed choice under Article 19(1)(a). Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Poonam, was elected as a Councillor from Ward No. 5 of Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon in October 2022. However, her election was challenged by the first respondent, Dulesingh, on the ground that she had failed to disclose a previous conviction in her nomination affidavit. Specifically, on August 7, 2018, Poonam ...

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...

Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and thus governed by the CrPC. Consequently, a review petition filed under Order XLVII of the CPC is not maintainable. The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments, except for correcting clerical errors, and the High Court's recall order constituted an impermissible substantive review. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated between two groups, the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group, regarding a joint venture to develop a resort in Kasauli. A key point of contention was the validity of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of their joint venture company, Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), held on 30.09.2006. The Bakshi Group relied on ...