This document provides a comprehensive summary of a significant legal case heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15168 of 2023. The case involves a challenge to a decision by an Election Tribunal that nullified the election of a 'Mukhiya' (village head) and declared the runner-up as the duly elected candidate. This ruling delves into crucial aspects of electoral law, focusing on the mandatory disclosure of information by candidates and the powers of election tribunals under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Background of the Dispute
The case originates from the Gram Panchayat Raj Bharsara under Dinara Block in the Rohtas district. In the 2021 Panchayat elections, Manju Devi (the petitioner in the High Court case) was declared the elected 'Mukhiya'. Subsequently, Ekata Devi (Respondent No. 4), another candidate in the election, filed Election Petition No. 05 of 2021 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge Junior Division, Bikramganj, Rohtas. Ekata Devi challenged Manju Devi's election on the grounds that Manju Devi had suppressed or failed to disclose material information in her nomination paper affidavit, as required by Section 125A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2005
The Election Tribunal's Decision
The Election Tribunal admitted Ekata Devi's petition for hearing. Despite the petitioner's (Manju Devi's) claim that she was not properly served with notices and was unaware of the proceedings
On August 29, 2023, the Election Tribunal issued its judgment. It not only set aside Manju Devi's election as 'Mukhiya' but also declared Ekata Devi (Respondent No. 4) as the duly elected candidate for the post
Manju Devi's Challenge in the High Court
Aggrieved by the Election Tribunal's order, Manju Devi filed the writ petition in the Patna High Court, seeking to quash the Tribunal's judgment. Her primary contentions were:
- Improper Ex-Parte Proceedings: She argued that the Election Tribunal proceeded with an ex-parte hearing without ensuring proper service of notices upon her and that she had no knowledge of the election petition
. - Failure to Frame Issues: She claimed that the Election Tribunal failed to frame the necessary issues, rendering the proceedings not in accordance with the law
. - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: Her most significant argument centered on the Tribunal's authority to declare Ekata Devi as the elected 'Mukhiya'. She contended that under Sections 140(1)(a) & (b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, an election petitioner can only be declared elected if it's established that they received the majority of valid votes, or would have received them but for corrupt practices. She argued that the Tribunal made no such finding that Ekata Devi had received the majority of valid votes and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction
. - Material Effect on Election Result: She argued that for an election to be declared void due to improper acceptance of a nomination paper, it must be proved that the result of the election was "materially affected" by such impropriety
. She asserted that the election petitioner (Ekata Devi) neither pleaded nor produced evidence that her candidature was materially affected by Manju Devi's alleged non-disclosure .
Legal Provisions and Precedents Cited
Both sides presented arguments supported by relevant sections of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and precedents from the Supreme Court of India.
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006:
- Section 125A (Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.): This section mandates candidates to furnish complete and accurate information in their nomination papers and affidavits. Failure to do so, including concealment of information or providing false information, is punishable
. - Section 139 (Grounds for declaring election to be void): This section outlines the conditions under which an election can be set aside. These include a returned candidate being unqualified or disqualified, committing corrupt practices, improper rejection or acceptance of nomination papers, or non-compliance with the Act or rules that "materially affected" the election result
. - Section 140 (Grounds on which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected): This crucial section states that an election petitioner can be declared elected if they prove they received a majority of valid votes, or would have received them but for the returned candidate's corrupt practices. The decision of the Prescribed Authority under this section is final
.
Supreme Court Precedents:
- Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): This case emphasized the right of voters to know crucial information about candidates, directing the Election Commission to mandate affidavits disclosing criminal records, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications as part of nomination papers
. - Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari (2012): This judgment highlighted that mere non-compliance with statutory provisions under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act (analogous to Section 139(1)(d)(iv) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act) is not sufficient to invalidate an election. The election petitioner must also plead and prove that such non-compliance "materially affected" the result of the election
. - Jyoti Basu vs. Devi Ghosal (1982): This case established that the right to elect, be elected, or dispute an election is a statutory right, not a fundamental or common law right. Election petitions are statutory proceedings governed strictly by the statute, meaning courts must operate within the specific framework laid down by the law
. - Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar & Ors. (2023): This case reiterated that election petitions are serious matters and should not be treated lightly or for vexatious purposes
.
Respondent No. 4's Defense
Ekata Devi, through her counsel, strongly defended the Election Tribunal's decision. She argued that:
- Valid Service of Notice: Manju Devi deliberately avoided receiving notices, as evidenced by refusal of registered post and subsequent newspaper publication
. Therefore, the ex-parte proceedings were justified . - Framing of Issues: Issues were indeed framed by the Tribunal on September 30, 2022, and both oral and documentary evidence were adduced
. - Material Non-Disclosure: Manju Devi's non-disclosure of mandatory information in her nomination paper was a "glaring illegality" and a direct violation of Section 125A of the Act. This omission, particularly concerning assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications, was material to the election outcome, especially given the small victory margin
. - No Need to Prove "Materially Affected": It was contended that if a returned candidate's nomination suffers from non-disclosure of mandatory information and was improperly accepted, there is no need for further proof that the election was "materially affected." The argument is that such a candidate would not have been eligible to contest at all had the nomination been properly scrutinized
. - Justified Declaration of Runner-Up: Once Manju Devi's election was declared void due to non-compliance with the Act, Ekata Devi, being the candidate with the second-highest number of votes, was rightfully declared the winner under Section 140 of the Act
.
High Court's Examination and Ruling
The High Court meticulously examined the various issues raised by both parties. The key questions before the Court were:
- Whether the Election Tribunal exhausted all options for securing Manju Devi's appearance before proceeding ex-parte
. - Whether the Tribunal properly framed issues in the election petition
. - Whether the non-disclosure of necessary information materially affected the election petitioner's (Ekata Devi's) candidature
. - Whether the election petitioner (Ekata Devi) presented a case that warranted interference by the Election Tribunal
. - Whether the Election Tribunal was justified in declaring Ekata Devi as the elected 'Mukhiya' after voiding Manju Devi's election
.
The High Court reviewed the records and found that notices were indeed issued to Manju Devi through various modes, including affixation at her residence, registered post (which she refused), and newspaper publication
The High Court ultimately dismissed Manju Devi's writ petition
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment from the Patna High Court reinforces the importance of transparency and full disclosure in electoral processes, particularly at the local self-governance level. It underscores that:
- Mandatory Disclosure is Paramount: Candidates in Panchayat elections are obligated to provide complete and accurate information as required by law. Non-disclosure or concealment of material facts can lead to the invalidation of their election.
- Material Effect Clause: While proving "materially affected" is generally crucial for voiding an election, the context of improper acceptance of nomination due to non-disclosure (as in this case) appears to be viewed stringently. The Court implicitly accepted that if a candidate is ineligible to contest due to such non-compliance, the election outcome is inherently affected.
- Powers of Election Tribunals: Election tribunals possess significant powers not only to void elections but also to declare the runner-up as the winner in cases where the returned candidate's election is nullified due to specific statutory violations, especially when the election petitioner is the next valid candidate in terms of votes.
- Diligence in Legal Proceedings: The case also highlights the importance of parties' active participation in legal proceedings, as the petitioner's claims of non-knowledge of the election petition were dismissed due to evidence of proper service attempts and her alleged refusal to accept notices.
This ruling serves as a vital precedent for maintaining the integrity of local body elections and emphasizes the accountability of elected representatives from the very stage of nomination. It reiterates that electoral disputes are governed strictly by statutory provisions, and adherence to disclosure norms is a fundamental requirement for a free and fair democratic process.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTUxNjgjMjAyMyMxI04=-eRlRhf2Ffsw=
0 Comments