The Supreme Court ruled that non-disclosure of income details in an election affidavit is not automatically a ‘substantial defect’ voiding an election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The defect must be of a consequential nature to constitute a corrupt practice or improper nomination acceptance. The people’s mandate cannot be invalidated on mere technicalities.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Ajmera Shyam, an Indian National Congress candidate, challenged the election of respondent Smt. Kova Laxmi (BRS party) to the Telangana Legislative Assembly from the Asifabad (ST) constituency. The election was declared on December 3, 2023, with Laxmi winning by a margin of 22,798 votes. The challenge was based on the alleged improper acceptance of her nomination paper. The appellant contended that in her mandatory Form 26 affidavit, Laxmi failed to disclose her income as shown in her Income Tax Returns for four financial years (2018-19 to 2021-22), instead stating it as ‘Nil’. It was alleged this concealed income from her honorarium as a Zilla Parishad Chairperson and a pension as a former MLA. The appellant argued this non-disclosure amounted to a ‘corrupt practice’ of undue influence under Section 123(2) and made her election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the election petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The election petition was initially filed by the appellant before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, challenging the respondent’s election. The High Court, in its judgment and order dated October 25, 2024, dismissed Election Petition No. 10 of 2024. The High Court held that the omission of income details for four financial years was not of a substantial character to constitute a corrupt practice or to have materially affected the election’s outcome. It also found no evidence of deliberate suppression of information. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant filed the present civil appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, before the Supreme Court of India, which culminated in the impugned judgment.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Trademark Law :No Monopoly on Common Words
Court Observation:
The Court observed that while the non-disclosure of income details in the affidavit was a technical defect, it did not constitute a defect of a ‘substantial character’ as required to void an election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The bench emphasized the critical distinction between the mandatory and strict disclosure of criminal antecedents versus the disclosure of assets and income, which requires a substantive assessment of the nature of the omission. The Court noted that the respondent had otherwise fully disclosed her assets, liabilities, and sources of income, and the petitioner failed to prove that the non-disclosure was consequential or amounted to a corrupt practice. Crucially, the ruling underscored that the people’s mandate, expressed through the ballot, should not be lightly invalidated based on mere technicalities that do not impact the electoral outcome.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the election of respondent Smt. Kova Laxmi. The Court concluded that the non-disclosure of income tax return details for four financial years was a technical and inconsequential defect, not one of a substantial character that would warrant voiding her election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It held that the appellant failed to establish that this omission amounted to a corrupt practice or that it materially affected the result of the election. Consequently, the nomination was not improperly accepted, and the people’s mandate, delivered through a significant victory margin, would not be overturned on this technical ground. The High Court’s order was affirmed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ajmera Shyam vs. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 992 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 13015 of 2024 Date of Judgement: August 14, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here