Issues for consideration: Whether the indication made by the appellant-returned candidate in Form-26, as ‘not applicable’ in the column relating to ‘spouse’, in the facts of the present case would amount to non-disclosure of the properties owned by her spouse; and whether that would amount to a defect of substantial character requiring rejection of the nomination papers of a successful candidate after the election as having materially affected the result.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.100(1)(d)(iv) – Appellantreturned candidate and her late husband who was the sitting member of the Legislative Assembly from 45-Hyuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency belonged to the Mishmi tribe in Arunachal Pradesh and as permitted under the custom of the said tribe, he had married the appellant as his third wife – High Court declared the election of the appellant from the said Constituency as void u/s.100(1)(d)(iv) holding that the details of the property owned by her late husband were not indicated in the relevant column of Form-26 and when the legal heir certificate issued in favour of the first wife of appellant’s late husband had been set aside as on the date when the nomination paper was filed by the appellant, the properties relating to which the legal heir certificate had been issued being that of the spouse ought to have been mentioned in the Form-26 of the affidavit – Propriety of:
Held: The case as set up by the appellant was that as per the custom followed by the Mishmi tribe it is only the first wife who succeeded to the properties of the husband if the deceased at the time of death had more than one wife and as such the appellant had no claim whatsoever over the said properties – Neither as on the date of the death of the spouse nor on the date of filing the nomination for the election at the first instance in the year 2016 or at the point when the nomination was filed on 22.03.2019, the property left behind by the deceased was claimed by the appellant – Further, much has been made about the challenge raised by the appellant to the legal heir certificate dtd.04.05.2017 issued in favour of the first wife which had been set aside as on the date of filing the nomination on 22.03.2019 – Apart from the fact that the dispute was still at large before the forum to which it was remitted, in any event, legal heir certificate by itself cannot be construed as a document of title to the property – It is a mode to determine the heirship based on which the consequential actions would follow – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the disclosure of the properties in the column in Form-26 to indicate the properties belonging to the spouse would not arise, firstly, since the spouse was not alive and on his death the succession had opened, even otherwise the appellant had not claimed any interest in the properties which are the subject matter and belonged to the deceased spouse – It is not a case of improperly accepted nomination and it certainly has not materially affected the result of the election as contemplated in s.100(1)(d)(i)
(iv) – Contention of the respondent that it would amount to non-disclosure and therefore a defect of substantial character not accepted – Impugned order set aside – Election Petition dismissed – Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. [Paras 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18]
Election – Election Petition – Scope of interference – Plea of the respondent that there is no uniformity in the opinion expressed by the witness with regard to the custom followed by the Mishmi tribe: Held: In the scope available to this Court in an election petition it would not be appropriate for this Court to either examine the customary right or the right to inheritance – It would be appropriate only to notice as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where the appellant herself has no claim to the properties after the succession has opened, the non-mentioning of the properties as belonging to that of the spouse was a substantial defect. [Para 9]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 162 : 2014 [7]SCR 258 – distinguished.
Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (2017) 2 SCC 487 : 2016 (9)SCR 687 – held inapplicable. Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC
294 : 2002 [3] SCR 696 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.