Poonam Vs Dule Singh & Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Non-Disclosure of Cheque-Bounce Conviction Costs Councillor Her Seat – SC Upholds Disqualification- Suppression of Criminal Record in Nomination Affidavit Fatal – Subsequent Acquittal Irrelevant: Right to Informed Vote Is Constitutional – Concealment of Conviction Violates Voters’ Fundamental Right
Petitioner, Poonam, was elected Councillor of Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon in 2022. Her election was later challenged by Dule Singh on the ground that she had suppressed her criminal conviction u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the affidavit accompanying her nomination form, as required under Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994.
Poonam had been convicted on 07.08.2018, sentenced to one year imprisonment, & ordered to pay compensation. She did not disclose this conviction while filing nomination on 09.09.2022. The trial court set aside her election, holding her disqualified under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Her revision before the High Court was dismissed, leading to this SLP.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The non-disclosure was not material since the offence u/s 138 NI Act was not of moral turpitude & later set aside on appeal (30.12.2022).
- Absence of proof that her election was materially affected by the omission.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Rule 24-A mandates full disclosure of any conviction.
- Eligibility must be determined as on the date of nomination; later acquittal irrelevant.
- Non-disclosure is a statutory breach vitiating nomination.
Supreme Court’s Findings
