The Aryavarth Express
Agency (Bengaluru): The Karnataka High Court, under the single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, has clarified that election candidates are not required to disclose every criminal case in their affidavits unless charges have been framed or the court has taken cognizance of the offenses. This ruling comes in the wake of a petition by BG Uday, who challenged his conviction under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act for allegedly filing a false affidavit. His conviction had previously been upheld by an appellate court.
The court emphasized that the obligation to disclose criminal antecedents under the 1951 Act and Rule 4A of the 1961 Rules is specific to cases where charges have been formally framed or cognizance has been taken by a court. This stipulation aims to ensure electoral transparency while respecting the legal process and the rights of the accused.
Justice Dixit pointed out that the intent behind Section 125A is to enhance purity and transparency in elections by providing voters with necessary information to make informed decisions. The law mandates candidates to disclose details about their criminal records, assets, liabilities, and educational background, aligning with the Right to Information ethos for the electorate.
The court’s decision addressed the respondent’s argument that any pending criminal case should be disclosed, regardless of its legal status. However, Justice Dixit rejected this broad interpretation, citing the precise language of the law that limits required disclosures to more advanced stages of criminal proceedings.
This judgement reinforces the balance between voter information rights and protecting the privacy and legal rights of candidates, narrowing disclosure obligations to cases of significant legal gravity. As a result, the petition was allowed, overturning the previous rulings by the trial court. This decision marks a significant clarification in electoral law, delineating the boundaries of legal disclosure obligations for candidates.
