Panchayat election candidates obliged to disclose info on pending cases: SC
The Supreme Court has upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision that candidates contesting panchayat elections were obliged to disclose information about cases pending against them.
Upholding the high court’s October 16, 2024, decision affirming the dismissal of Pangna village panchayat ‘pradhan’ in Mandi district, a Bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said, “"It is a case where he deliberately filed a false affidavit/undertaking concealing the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. The concealment of that material fact per se was a valid ground to annul his election."
In any case, the misconduct attributed to the petitioner Basant Lal did not require reference to any provision of the act, rules or regulations, it said.
Lal was declared as pradhan on January 17, 2021. Jitender Mahajan, who finished third in the polls, challenged his election before the sub-divisional authorised officer, contending that Lal deliberately did not disclose the pendency of a criminal case registered against him.
The sub-divisional magistrate-cum-authorised officer (election tribunal) found that a criminal case was pending trial against Lal, where a punishment of up to two years could be awarded, and declared the petitioner’s election as null and void.
Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, Lal filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner-cum-appellant authority, which was dismissed on May 1, 2023. Thereafter, he approached the high court against the order of the deputy commissioner.
Lal moved the top court against the November 7, 2024, order of a division bench of the high court, affirming the view taken by a single-judge bench on his disqualification from holding the post of pradhan of the gram panchayat.
However, the top court said, “We fail to find any merit as far as the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order(s) and judgment(s) of the high court are concerned. We say so for the reason that the regulations framed by the State Election Commission have rightly been held by the high court to be a piece of subordinate legislation and, thus, the candidates contesting the panchayat election were obligated to comply with the provisions of the same.”
Lal had contended that on February 2, 2025, he was disqualified from contesting elections for a period of six years due to the previous non-disclosure of a criminal case.
The bench, however, noted that Lal has been thereafter acquitted in the criminal case, the details of which he allegedly concealed and suffered disqualification.
On the issue of his disqualification for six years, it said the punishment was harsh, as he has been acquitted in the criminal case in question.
“Turning lastly to the order dated February 2, 2025, by way of which the petitioner has been precluded from contesting elections for the next six years, we do not want to express any opinion on this order’s merits as it is a subsequent event which was not subject matter of the challenge before the high court," it said.
Noting that the petitioner was said to have been acquitted in the criminal case, the Bench stayed the February 2, 2025, order to enable the petitioner to contest the election of pradhan of the gram panchayat, if it is held in the near future.
It seemed that barring him for six years from contesting elections was “prima facie harsh and disproportionate punishment to the nature of allegations attributed to him", it said.
Himachal Tribune