Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Kova Laxmi as MLA from Asifabad last year. The judge was dealing with an election petition filed by Ajmera Shyam, seeking set aside of the election of the respondent and declaration of himself as the duly elected candidate.
The judge dismissed the election petition within a period of nine months and 20 days, within timelines mentioned in Section 86 (7) of the legislative intent and principle laid down by the apex court.
Shyam, represented by senior counsel C. Raghu, contended that the respondent failed to comply with the provisions with regard to submission of nomination as prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The submission of nomination by the respondent along with Form-26 was incomplete as she did not submit five years of income tax returns, he said.
It was also alleged that the respondent deliberately suppressed her income for particular years thereby committing a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Act.
On the contrary, Laxmi challenged the maintainability of the election petition and contended that the same was filed without compliance with the requirement in Form 25. The respondent represented by senior counsel J. Ramachandra Rao inter alia also contended that the election petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of false and frivolous allegations made therein.
She denied any suppression of her income or misguiding the people/voters of the subject constituency and contended that the election petitioner did not raise any objection during scrutiny of nominations. Ramachandra Rao contended that there was suppression on the part of the election petitioner in the affidavit filed in Form 26 with regard to subsisting government contract.
The judge observed that non-disclosure of income-tax returns was not a ground to declare the election void. The judge also noted that nomination of respondent-returned candidate was accepted and there was no improper acceptance.
The judge observed. “at the time of receiving the nomination, returning officer will only verify as to whether candidate filled all the columns or not. He cannot conduct a roving enquiry at the stage of scrutiny of nomination in terms of Section 36 of the Act. Moreover, in the present case, the election petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to non-mentioning of income tax returns for four financial years prior to the financial year 2022-23. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the election petitioner that the nomination of respondent No.1 - returned candidate was accepted improperly is unsustainable.”
The judge emphasised the purity of elections and how a free and fair election was the sacrosanct thread that wove the country’s democratic fabric. The judge compared the votes received by the election petitioner and the respondent to highlight that the voters had reposed confidence on her.
The judge observed that if the non-mentioning of four years I-T returns by the respondent amounted to non-disclosure which is of substantial in nature, the non-disclosure by the election petitioner of government contracts would also amount to non-disclosure of substantial in nature.
