The Supreme Court rules in favor of candidate, stating that the non-disclosure of transferred vehicles before the nomination did not invalidate the nomination papers.
Case title: Karikho Kri vs. Nuney Tayang and Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023
Decided on: 09.04.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar. Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case revolves around an election petition where Nuney Tayang contested the acceptance of Karikho Kri’s nomination for the 44-Tezu(ST) Assembly Constituency. The High Court scrutinized the nomination papers and found discrepancies related to the non-disclosure of assets and liabilities. Specifically, it noted that three vehicles registered under Karikho Kri’s family members were transferred before the nomination, indicating a lack of ownership at the time of filing. These findings led to a challenge regarding the improper acceptance of Karikho Kri’s nomination and raised questions about the impact of these non-disclosures on the election outcome.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case include Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deals with corrupt practices in elections. Additionally, the case references
Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act of 1951, which pertains to the grounds for declaring an election void. The interpretation of these provisions was crucial in determining the validity of Karikho Kri’s nomination and the potential impact on the election results.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant, Nuney Tayang, contended that Karikho Kri’s nomination should be invalidated due to non-disclosure of assets and liabilities in the nomination papers. Tayang argued that the transfer of vehicles registered under Kri’s family members before the nomination constituted a substantial defect. He also raised concerns about the improper acceptance of Kri’s nomination and its potential impact on the election outcome. Overall, Tayang’s contention focused on the legal grounds for challenging Kri’s nomination and the implications of non-disclosures on the election process.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondent, Karikho Kri, defended against the allegations of non-disclosure in the nomination papers. Kri’s legal counsel argued that the transfer of vehicles registered under family members before the nomination did not constitute a defect as ownership had already changed hands. They contended that the non-disclosure of certain assets and liabilities was not substantial and did not affect the validity of the nomination. Kri’s defense primarily centered around justifying the actions related to the nomination papers and refuting the claims of improper acceptance.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court analyzed the contentions regarding the non-disclosure of assets and liabilities, particularly focusing on the transfer of vehicles registered under Karikho Kri’s family members before the nomination. The court emphasized the importance of ownership at the time of filing the nomination and how the transfer of vehicles impacted the validity of the nomination. They highlighted that the High Court had overlooked a crucial point of distinction regarding ownership and possession of the vehicles, which significantly influenced the case.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the non-disclosure of the vehicles in question could not be held against Karikho Kri based on the analysis provided. They determined that such non-disclosure should not be considered a substantial defect that would invalidate the nomination. The court’s judgment favored Karikho Kri, emphasizing the significance of ownership and possession of assets at the time of filing the nomination papers in election cases.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava