New Delhi:
A false statement regarding the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents constitutes a corrupt practice regardless of the impact of such false statement on the candidate’s election, the Supreme Court said Wednesday.
The Supreme Court said that election purity at all levels, be it center, state or municipal corporation or a panchayat, is a matter of national concern in which uniform policies are desirable in the interest of all states.
“A false statement as to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents constitutes a corrupt practice, regardless of the impact of such false statement on the candidate’s election. It may be assumed that a false statement affects the election,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit.
The comments came amid the rejection of an appeal against a Karnataka Supreme Court order regarding the election of a candidate in municipal corporation polls in 2018.
The Supreme Court had upheld the trial court order annulling the election of S Rukmini Madegowda for Mysore Municipal Corporation as Councilor of Branch No. 36-Yeraganahalli, Karnataka.
The election was contested on the complaint of CS Rajani Annaiah, who had also contested the polls.
It was alleged that Madegowda falsely stated in her Affidavit of Assets that her husband owned no real estate, and by making such a false statement, the applicant had indulged in corrupt practices in order to gain the advantage of reservation.
Madegowda’s counsel had filed in the Supreme Court that her election was governed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and that there was no disclosure requirement under the KMC Act or the KMC Election Rules.
He had also questioned the election commission’s authority to issue a notice in 2003 requiring candidates running in the election to disclose their assets and the assets of their spouses and family members by submitting an affidavit. However, the highest court said the electoral commission’s power also includes the power to point out where the law is silent.
It said there is no legal impediment to the state election commission from issuing an affidavit that the assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependents must be made public.
“In issuing the notice dated July 14, 2003, the Election Commission has not infringed upon the legislative domain of the Karnataka State Legislature,” said the bench, which also consisted of Judges Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi.
“Although the division of powers between the government of the Union and the governments of the federated states is an essential feature of federalism, in matters of national interest a uniform policy is essential in the interest of all states, without disturbing the clear division of powers, so that the Union and the States legislate within their respective domains. “The Constitution is the supreme law for the Union and for the States, supported by an independent judiciary that acts as the guardian of the Constitution,” it said.
The highest court said there is no doubt that Parliament and the state’s respective legislatures have supreme power and are not bound by any advice from the election commission. “It is equally true that the Election Commission must act within the four corners of the law established by Parliament and/or the relevant state legislature, as the case may be. However, in our reasonable judgment, the Election Commission has given notice within the contour of the law,” the bank said while dismissing Madegowda’s appeal.
(This story was not edited by DailyExpertNews staff and was generated automatically from a syndicated feed.)
