Voter has right to know candidate background, says SC, junks LS MP’s plea

Patil won the Lok Sabha polls from Zaheerabad constituency in Telangana on a TRS (now BRS) ticket in 2019 by a margin of 6,229 votes.

Following this, Madan Mohan Rao of the Congress, who finished second, filed an election petition, alleging, among others, that Patil had furnished false information in the election affidavit; that the Returning Officer had not followed the Election Commission’s October 2018 guidelines; and that there was no previous publication of papers regarding pending cases against him and those in which he was convicted.

The HC initially rejected the election petition in June 2022. After the Supreme Court stayed the order, the HC subsequently rejected Patil’s application, following which he moved the SC.

Patil had contended before HC that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was barred in law, and was thus liable to be rejected.

Upholding the HC decision, the SC said whether the facts alleged disclose an offence is a matter of trial and venturing into it at this stage would amount to pre-judging.

“Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested, the bench said in its order. “This court would be pre-judging that issue because arguendo [for the sake of argument] if the effect of withholding some such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, that would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations (which is to be established in a trial).”

It said that “for these reasons, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted”.