AJMERA SHYAM versus SMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

AJMERA SHYAM versus SMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

Non-disclosure by the returned candidate of income figures in the Form 26 affidavit for four financial years, shown as ‘Nil’, was a procedural/technical defect which was not of substantial character; substantial compliance existed because assets, sources of income, profession, PAN and the latest ITR (2022-23) were disclosed, there was no proof of deliberate concealment or disproportionate income, no corrupt practice was proved, and the nomination was not improperly accepted; consequently the election could not be declared void under Sections 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(b) or 100(1)(d)(iv).

Parties
Appellant: Ajmera Shyam; Respondent No.1 (returned Candidate): Smt. Kova Laxmi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Arising From an Election Petition / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Election Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Assets, Form 26 Affidavit, Income Tax Returns, Corrupt Practice, Nomination Acceptance, Rule 4 a, Section 100 RP Act, Right to Information (art. 19(1)(a))
Election Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Disclosure of Assets Form 26 Affidavit Income Tax Returns Corrupt Practice Nomination Acceptance +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajmera Shyam

Appellant

Smt. Kova Laxmi

Respondent No.1 (returned Candidate)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Arising From an Election Petition / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Election Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-mentioning of income shown in income tax returns for four financial years in Form 26 and stating ‘Nil’ amounts to non-disclosure making acceptance of nomination improper under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act
  2. 2 Whether such non-disclosure constitutes a corrupt practice attracting Section 100(1)(b) RP Act (via Section 123(2))
  3. 3 Whether non-disclosure violates Rule 4A and attracts Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act

Ratio Decidendi

Non-disclosure by the returned candidate of income figures in the Form 26 affidavit for four financial years, shown as ‘Nil’, was a procedural/technical defect which was not of substantial character; substantial compliance existed because assets, sources of income, profession, PAN and the latest ITR (2022-23) were disclosed, there was no proof of deliberate concealment or disproportionate income, no corrupt practice was proved, and the nomination was not improperly accepted; consequently the election could not be declared void under Sections 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(b) or 100(1)(d)(iv).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit
  • Parties to bear their own costs