SATISH UKEY versus DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS AND ANR.

SATISH UKEY versus DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS AND ANR.

A cumulative reading of Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, Form 26 (as substituted in 2012) and the Election Commission's letters establishes that the information to be furnished includes not only convictions and cases where charges have been framed but also cases in which a competent court has taken cognizance; omission to disclose such cases in the Form 26 affidavit can attract prosecution under Section 125-A. In the present case, the complaint alleged non-disclosure of two cognizance cases and the trial court and High Court orders dismissing the complaint were set aside and the complaint remanded for fresh consideration.

Parties
Appellant: Satish Ukey; First Respondent: Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis; Second Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment on Merits Allowing the Appeals
Outcome
Appeals allowed; order of the High Court dated 3 May 2018 set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration from the stage it was interdicted.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations in Nomination Affidavits, False Affidavit and Penal Provision Under Section 125 a, Interpretation of Section 33 a and Form 26, Role of Election Commission Instructions
Electoral Law Criminal Law Constitutional Law Disclosure Obligations in Nomination Affidavits False Affidavit and Penal Provision Under Section 125 a Interpretation of Section 33 a and Form 26 Role of Election Commission Instructions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satish Ukey

Appellant

Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis

First Respondent

Anr.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment on Merits Allowing the Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the term 'information' in Section 33-A(1) is confined to clauses (i) and (ii) or includes other information required under the Act or rules (including cases where cognizance is taken)
  2. 2 Whether omission to disclose cases in which cognizance has been taken in the affidavit (Form 26) attracts penalty under Section 125-A
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit required under Section 33-A(2) is the Form 26 prescribed by Rule 4-A and whether Form 26 mandates disclosure of cases where cognizance has been taken

Ratio Decidendi

A cumulative reading of Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, Form 26 (as substituted in 2012) and the Election Commission's letters establishes that the information to be furnished includes not only convictions and cases where charges have been framed but also cases in which a competent court has taken cognizance; omission to disclose such cases in the Form 26 affidavit can attract prosecution under Section 125-A. In the present case, the complaint alleged non-disclosure of two cognizance cases and the trial court and High Court orders dismissing the complaint were set aside and the complaint remanded for fresh consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; order of the High Court dated 3 May 2018 set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration from the stage it was interdicted.

Orders

  • High Court order dated 3 May 2018 is set aside
  • Complaint to be considered afresh by the trial Court from the stage where it was interdicted (order dated 30.5.2016)