ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN Vs. MADHAVRAO KINHALKAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
May 05,2014
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN,MADHU KORA,UMLESH YADAV
Appellant
VERSUS
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,MADHAVRAO KINHALKAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHRI KRISHAN V. SAT NARAIN [REFERRED TO]AMAR NATH AGARWALLA V. DHILLON TRANSPORT AGENCY DUPORT STEELS LTD. V. SIRS [REFERRED TO]
AZHAR HUSSAIN V. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
N P PONNUSWAMI THE UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST :RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TOLARAM RELUMAL VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SUCHETA KRIPALANI VS. S S DULAT [REFERRED TO]
BRUNDABAN NAYAK VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SALES TAX OFFICER PONKUNNAM VS. K I ABRAHAM [REFERRED TO]
DALCHAND JAIN VS. NARAYAN SHANKAR TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
SOMNATH SAHU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. ANDHRA PROVINCIAL POTTERIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
M KARUNANIDHI R RANGASAMI A CHINNADURAI R PERIASAMY A CHINDRASEKHARAN VS. H V HANDE AND OTHRS:C R RAJAPPA:V PERUMAL NAINAR:T P K JAYARAJ:P S MANIAN [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE A REGISTERED SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
L R SHIVARAMAGOWDA VS. T M CHANDRASHEKAR [REFERRED TO]
P NALLAMMAL VS. STATE REP [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA VS. ASHOK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK CHANDRA RUHIADAS VS. CHANDAN KUMAR SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM PHAL KUNDU VS. KAMAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURINDER SINGH BANOLTA [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S DIGHOLE VS. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
AFJAL IMAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY SH A P D JAIN PATHSHALA VS. SHIVAJI BHAGWAT MORE [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR SINGH SAINI VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
CAPT CHANAN SINGH SIDHU VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO VS. KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.A.MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ANNARAO S/O GOVINDRAO PATIL VS. AMIT S/O VILASRAO DESHMUKH [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-138] [REFERRED TO]RADHA MOHAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2015-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
A.C.SHANMUGAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-160] [REFERRED TO]
DR. NAROTTAM MISHRA VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-232] [REFERRED TO]
K.K.RAMESH VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-605] [REFERRED TO]
S SADACHARI SAI BABA OM JI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-142] [REFERRED TO]
K. SRINIVAS VS. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
PRANOY ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP BARANWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR DOHAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-280] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN YADAV VS. MP RAJYA NIRVACHAN AYOG [LAWS(MPH)-2015-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. K. SRINIVAS VS. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-111] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI VS. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (I)/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-166] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR PASWAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. The simple yet important question of law that has arisen in these appeals before us and which has serious ramifications on the maintenance of sanctity in our democracy is as to whether the Election Commission, under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, can conduct an enquiry to determine the falsity of the return of election expenses by an elected candidate, especially after a decision is rendered by the High Court in the election petition preferred by Respondent 1.
(2.)On the aforesaid background, let us briefly examine the facts of this case. The appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 29882 of 2011 has been filed by the candidate who was elected in the Assembly elections in the State of Maharashtra. The results of the election to the Assembly were declared on 22-10-2009. Respondent 1 was one of the candidates who contested the said election as against the appellant. The appellant was declared elected and Respondent 1 was an unsuccessful candidate.
(3.)As per the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act and the Rules"), within one month from the date of publication of the results, a statement of election expenses has to be filed by the candidate with the District Election Officer (hereinafter called "DEO"). The appellant is stated to have filed his statement of election expenses on 17-11-2009 i.e. within one month of the date of election. It is also brought to our notice that on 24-11-2009, the DEO, Nanded forwarded his report to the Election Commission of India and that according to the appellant, nothing adverse was stated in the said report. However, on 2-12-2009, Respondent 1 filed a complaint with the
Election Commission alleging violation of the Election Code based on newspaper reports. Besides the above complaint of Respondent 1 to the Election Commission, he also filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal (High Court) on 4-12-2009. This very allegation which was raised before the Election Commission was stated to have been raised in the election petition as well. The election petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal (High Court) on 18-10-2012 Madhavrao v. Ashok, 2013 1 BCR 585 on the ground of want of material particulars. Respondent 1 thereby preferred a statutory appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9271 of 2012, which was also dismissed by this Court on 21-1-2013.
(2.)On the aforesaid background, let us briefly examine the facts of this case. The appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 29882 of 2011 has been filed by the candidate who was elected in the Assembly elections in the State of Maharashtra. The results of the election to the Assembly were declared on 22-10-2009. Respondent 1 was one of the candidates who contested the said election as against the appellant. The appellant was declared elected and Respondent 1 was an unsuccessful candidate.
(3.)As per the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act and the Rules"), within one month from the date of publication of the results, a statement of election expenses has to be filed by the candidate with the District Election Officer (hereinafter called "DEO"). The appellant is stated to have filed his statement of election expenses on 17-11-2009 i.e. within one month of the date of election. It is also brought to our notice that on 24-11-2009, the DEO, Nanded forwarded his report to the Election Commission of India and that according to the appellant, nothing adverse was stated in the said report. However, on 2-12-2009, Respondent 1 filed a complaint with the
Election Commission alleging violation of the Election Code based on newspaper reports. Besides the above complaint of Respondent 1 to the Election Commission, he also filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal (High Court) on 4-12-2009. This very allegation which was raised before the Election Commission was stated to have been raised in the election petition as well. The election petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal (High Court) on 18-10-2012 Madhavrao v. Ashok, 2013 1 BCR 585 on the ground of want of material particulars. Respondent 1 thereby preferred a statutory appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9271 of 2012, which was also dismissed by this Court on 21-1-2013.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.