False declaration of educational qualification made by candidate in Form 26 can be brought within four corners of Sec.123(4) of Representation of People Act: Delhi HC

Read Judgment: Yogender Chandolia vs. Vishesh Ravi & Others

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, December 27, 2021: While stating that the expression “in relation to candidature” should include information concerning the educational qualification of a candidate, since the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that voters have the fundamental right to know the antecedents of the candidate, the Delhi High Court has opined that a false declaration made, qua educational qualification can be brought within the four corners of Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Single Judge Ravi Shakdher therefore observed that the candidate who files his nomination is required, inter alia, to disclose his educational qualifications as also his past convictions including fines imposed, imprisonment suffered, acquittals/discharge, if any, obtained. 

Disclosure qua the above mentioned is in addition to the disclosure of information qua pending criminal case where a person if convicted, can be sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, albeit, where charge is framed or cognizance is taken by Court of law, and information concerning the candidate’s assets including those of the spouse and dependents as also liabilities, particularly, those related to the Government or public institutes, added the Single Judge.

Going by the background of the case, an election petition came to be preferred u/s 80 r/w/s 100(1)(b) & (d) as also Section 101 of the 1951 Act on March 23, 2020, seeking direction from this Court, to the effect, that the result of the election qua Assembly Constituency-23, Karol Bagh, NCT of Delhi held on February 8, 2020 be declared null and void, alleging that what Yogender Chandolia (Applicant) has disclosed in Form-26 along with his nomination, that his educational qualification is “Matric passed from National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) (2003)” is false according to Vishesh Ravi (Petitioner). Secondly, it was also alleged that there is no disclosure concerning the pendency of the FIR registered at Police Station, Paharganj, Delhi in Form-26. 

Challenging the same, an application had been preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC r/w/s 86 of the 1951 Act, on the ground that the election petition read as a whole along with the documents filed, does not disclose a cause of action, and hence, ought to be rejected. 

On the other hand, it was asserted that since full particulars of corrupt practices have not been set forth in the election petition, the application is liable to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act. 

After considering the submissions, the High Court observed that one cannot quibble with the proposition that the registration of an FIR does not bring the matter adverted to therein, within the ambit of a pending criminal case. 

Admittedly, the petitioner has neither made any assertion nor placed any document on record, in this behalf. However, this by itself may not help the applicant in sustaining his defence that he has made full disclosure given the directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning the disclosure of information by a candidate while filing his nomination, added the Court.

Insofar as the submission that the allegation made against the applicant that he had falsely claimed that he had passed Class-X examination in 2003 was not liable to be sustained, is not tenable, said the Single Judge, as at this stage, the apparent dissonance between the pleading and the document would not be enough to reject the election petition.

Justice Shakdher found from a careful perusal of the election petition that there are assertions which seek to demonstrate that the applicant has been taking inconsistent stands concerning the highest educational qualification secured by him.

The argument that the verification of the averments made in the election petition is faulty, and not in consonance with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15(2) of CPC or that the affidavit filed along with the petition does not adhere to the prescribed format i.e., Form-25 read with Rule 94A of the 1961 Rules, are curable defects, added Justice Shakdher. 

Hence, the High Court dismissed the application and granted leave to the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit in the prescribed form keeping in mind the requirements captured in Form-25, vis-a-vis verification of the particulars of the corrupt practice.