Election Affidavit Suppression Can Be Challenged Only Through Election Petition: Madras HC

N. Vigneshwaran Vs Director General of Income Tax (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to the Income Tax authorities and Election Commission officials to verify the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings made by a candidate in election affidavits.

The Court held that the relief sought was not maintainable in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which provides that elections to Parliament or State Legislatures can be challenged only through an election petition filed in the manner prescribed by law.

The Court referred to Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which specifies the grounds on which an election may be declared void. It observed that such issues can only be raised through an election petition.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014) 14 SCC 162. The Supreme Court had held that when objections are raised regarding incorrect disclosures or suppression of material information in election affidavits, the Returning Officer may not be able to conduct a detailed enquiry at the nomination stage. In such cases, the issue can later be examined in an election petition. The Supreme Court also observed that if suppression or misinformation is ultimately established, the nomination may be treated as improperly accepted and the election can be declared void.

The Madras High Court noted that non-disclosure of material information in election affidavits is a valid ground for challenging an election through an election petition, but such relief cannot be sought through a writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue remedies available under law. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents 3 and 4 to verify into the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings of 5^th respondent, made in his election affidavits filed before 4th respondent.

2. The prayer made in this petition is not maintainable in the light of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India which provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for or by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature.

3. In Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, grounds for declaring election to be void have been set out, which can be raised only by way of election petition.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant¹, has held in paragraph 38 as under:

“38. When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the returning officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not suffice. Present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same time, it would not be possible for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification about the allegations made by the objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of non­disclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not contain complete information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the Election Commission, right argued that such an enquiry can be only at a later stage and the appropriate stage would be in an election petition as in the instant case, when the election is challenged. The grounds stated in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the nomination. Likewise, where the blanks are left in an affidavit, nomination can be rejected there and then. In other cases where detailed enquiry is needed, it would depend upon the outcome thereof, in an election petition, as to whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance. Once it is found that it was a case of improper acceptance, as there was misinformation or suppression of material information, one can state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a later date. When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void. Otherwise, it would be an anomalous situation that even when criminal proceedings under Section 125A of the Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be countenanced.”

5. The Apex Court, in the judgment supra, has held that when an information is given by a candidate in an affidavit along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the Returning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. The non-disclosure of material information in the affidavit is a valid ground for setting aside election by filing an election petition and such relief cannot be sought by way of a writ petition.

6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.17243 of 2026 is closed.

Note:

¹ (2014) 14 SCC 162