Manipur High Court
Shri Okram Joy Singh vs Shri Karam Shyam on 14 July, 2026
2026:MNHC:129
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022
Shri Okram Joy Singh, aged about 80 years old, S/o (L) Okram
Ibomcha Singh, a permanent residence of Kakwa Huidrom Leikai,
P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795003.
(Indian National Congress (INC) Candidate)
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
Shri Karam Shyam, aged about 59 years old, S/o (L) Karam
Biramani Singh, a permanent residence of Lilong Chajing
Mairenkhong, P.O. Lilong Bazar & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795130. Returned Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) Candidate.
.... Respondent
With
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022
Shri Karam Shyam, aged about 59 years old, S/o (L) Karam
Biramani Singh, a permanent residence of Lilong Chajing
Mairenkhong, P.O. Lilong Bazar & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur – 795130.
…. Petitioner
– Versus –
Shri Okram Joy Singh, aged about 80 years old, S/o (L) Okram
Ibomcha Singh, a permanent residence of Kakwa Huidrom Leikai,
P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur –
795003.
…. Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
For petitioner in EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 Mr. H.S. Paonam, Senior Advocate
and for respondent in EL. RECR. PET. No. instructed by Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate
5 of 2022 along with Mr. S. Gunabanta, Advocate
For respondent in EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate along with
and for petitioner in EL. RECR. PET. No. Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, Advocate and Mr. David
5 of 2022 Boon, Advocate
Date of judgment & order 14.07.2026
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 1 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
A. ABBREVIATIONS:
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl. Abbreviation/Short
No. Form/other short Full Form/Expansion
references
1. RP Act the Representation of People Act,
1951(43 of 1951)
2. said Election Rules the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
3. MLR & LR Act the Manipur Land Revenue & Land
Reforms Act, 1960 (33 of 1960)
4. MLR & LR Rules the Manipur Land Revenue & Land
Reforms Rules, 1961
5. election petitioner Shri Okram Joy Singh
6. returned candidate Shri Karam Shyam
7. AC Assembly Constituency
8. ACs Assembly Constituencies
9. said AC 20-Langthabal Assembly Constituency,
State of Manipur
10. BJP Bharatiya Janata Party
11. INC Indian National Congress
12. NPP National People's Party
13. ECI Election Commission of India
14. NOTA None of the above
15. R1 first respondent
16. R2 second respondent
17 R3 third respondent
18. MC miscellaneous case
19. MCs miscellaneous cases
20. RO Returning Officer
21. w.e.f. with effect from
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 2 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
22. RTI Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of
2005)
23. CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
24. PIO Public Information Officer
25. said land two parcels of homestead land
comprised in CS Dag Nos. 894/1015
and 894/1521 vide Patta Nos. 176/873
and 176/1423 (new pattas)
admeasuring 0.132 acres (5749.92 sq.
ft.) and 0.033 acres (1437.48 sq. ft.)
respectively
26. said institute Government Central Textile Institute,
Kanpur (under Kanpur University)
B. Factual matrix in a nutshell:
[2] State of Manipur has a 60 (sixty) member unicameral legislature.
On 08.01.2022, ECI announced general elections for 12th Manipur Legislative
Assembly. One of the sixty ACs is 20-Langthabal Assembly Constituency (said
AC) and captioned election petition pertains to said AC. In said AC, election
petitioner was set up by INC and returned candidate was set up by BJP. One
candidate set up by NPP and an independent were the other two contestants in
the fray. It was a four cornered contest. Electorate in said AC is 28,128 out of
which 26,576 cast their votes and 309 votes were rejected as invalid votes.
Returned candidate polled 10,815 votes, election petitioner finished second with
8,762 votes, candidate set up by NPP finished third with 5,949 votes, the
independent candidate polled 504 votes and 237 votes were cast qua NOTA.
Polling in said AC was on 28.02.2022, results were declared on 10.03.2022 and
the returned candidate i.e., candidate set up by BJP was declared elected
securing 2,053 votes more than the election petitioner who finished second.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 3 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
C. The trajectory of captioned election petition:
[3] Captioned election petition was filed in this Court (obviously by
the election petitioner) on 20.04.2022 and it was presented on 28.04.2022.
When the captioned election petition was filed/presented, while returned
candidate was arrayed as R-1, candidate who contested as independent was
arrayed as R-2 and the candidate set up by NPP was arrayed as R-3.
Subsequently, vide a judicial order dated 25.04.2024 made in MC (EL. PET.) No.
18 of 2024, R-2 was deleted. R-3 was also deleted. Therefore, while four
candidates were in the fray in the electoral tussle at the hustings, there are only
two litigants in the fray in instant legal drill vide captioned election petition and
this also means that returned candidate who was arrayed as R -1 has
subsequently become sole respondent. In the interregnum, returned candidate
filed a recrimination petition {Election Recrimination Petition No. 5 of 2022} on
24.05.2022 and written statement dated 16.08.2022 (presented on same day
i.e., 16.08.2022). Post deletion of R-2 and R-3, election petitioner and returned
candidate alone were in the fray, pleadings were complete (election petitioner
had filed replication dated 20.10.2022), issues were framed by Hon’ble
predecessor Bench on 18.07.2024 and as many as 14 issues were framed.
Thereafter, when the captioned election petition was listed before this Bench
on 03.02.2026, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, issues were
recast/pruned and five issues were framed. Proceedings/order of this Bench
made in the listing on 03.02.2026 reads as follows:
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 4 of 85
2026:MNHC:129‘03.02.2026
Captioned election petition and Election Recr. petition are being
taken up and heard out together.
2. Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel on record in election petition and Mr. A.
Mohendro, learned counsel along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel
for returned candidate are before this Court.
3. This proceedings/order has to be read in conjunction with and in
continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings on
25.11.2025 and 16.12. 2025 which read as follows:
‘25.11.2025
In hearing today Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior
advocate instructed by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on
behalf of election petitioner and Mr. A. Mohendro, learned
counsel on behalf of returned candidate (first respondent)-Shri
Karam Shyam Singh are before this Court.
2. Issue now is regarding the other respondent Shri Karam
Nabakishor Singh as notwithstanding earlier proceedings dated
13.10.2025, learned counsel on record for election petitioner is
unable to assist this Court on this. However from the case file, it
is seen that Mr. Abdul Baqee Khan and Mr. Syed Murtaza,
learned Advocates have been filed a Vakalatnama dated
19.10.2022 on behalf of Shri Karam Nabakishor Singh but their
names are not shown in the cause list. There is also a judicial
order dated 30.08.2022 setting R3 ex-parte but this order does
not mention the name of respondent No.3. To be noted, one
Shri Hijam Somorendro Singh who was respondent No.2 when
election petition was filed was since deleted vide a Judicial Order
dated 25.04.2024 made in this MC (El. Pet.) No. 18 of 2024, this
means that there are only two respondents namely returned
candidate Shri Karam Shyam Singh and Mr. Karam Nabakishor
Singh, as already alluded to supra, the position regarding
service and as to whether he has entered appearance through
counsel is not clear/certain. Let Registry put up a note and let
counsel on record for the election petitioner assist this Court in
next listing which will be on 16.12.2025.
3. List on 16.12.2025. ‘
‘16.12.2025Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of the earlier
proceedings made in the previous listing on 25.11.2025.
Pursuant to afore-mentioned proceedings, Registry has put up a
note dated 05.12.2025.
Be that as it may, in the hearing today, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned
senior advocate instructed by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on
record for the election petitioner (Shri Okram Joy Singh) and Mr. A.
Mohendro, learned counsel for the returned candidate (Shri Karam
Shyam) are before this Court.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 5 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
Adverting to earlier proceedings dated 25.11.2025, both sides
submitted that when the election petition was filed, there were 3(three)
respondents, R1(Shri Karam Shyam/returned candidate), R2(Shri
Hijam Somarendro Singh) and R3(Shri Karam Nabakishore Singh).
In and by an order dated 30.08.2022, R3(Shri Karam
Nabakishore Singh) was set ex-parte. Thereafter, R3(Shri Karam
Nabakishore Singh), filed an application being MC(El.Pet.) No. 7 of 2024
with a prayer to set-aside the order setting him ex-parte. On
25.04.2024, MC(El.Pet.) No. 7 of 2024 filed by R3(Shri Karam
Nabakishore Singh), was disposed of as having become infructuous.
This means that 30.08.2022 order operates. This also means that, Shri
R3(Karam Nabakishore Singh), remains ex-parte.
This takes this order to Shri H. Somarendro Singh, who was R2
when the election petition was filed. In and by order dated
25.04.2024 made in MC(El. Pet. No. 18 of 2024), the name of Shri
Hijam Somarendro Singh, was deleted.
The narrative thus far means that there is only 1 contesting
respondent and that contesting respondent is the returned candidate
(Shri Karam Shyam). The election petition will now proceed on this
basis.
Captioned El.Recr.Pet. No. 5 of 2022 taken out by returned
candidate has to be heard out. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel is
ready to make submissions but Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel for
the election petitioner, requests for a short accommodation on the
ground that he needs time to brief senior counsel Mr. H.S. Paonam,
This request is acceded to.
List after winter vacation.
List on 30.01.2026.’
4. The above proceedings/order make it clear that there are only two
parties (now) in the captioned election petition and election recr. petition viz.,
election petitioner Shri Okram Joy Singh and returned candidate Shri Karam
Shyam Singh.
5. Afore-referred learned counsel on both sides very fairly consented to
have the election petition and election recr. petition taken up together and
heard out together. By consenting for having election petition and election recr.
petition taken up together, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the returned
candidate submitted that he will reserve his right to argue that he may have
to let in evidence later. If this argument is made when election petition and
election recr. petition are heard out together, this argument will be also
considered and decided one way or other way by this Court. On this common
platform, captioned election petition and recr. petition are taken up together.
6. As argument are to commence, this Court perused the issues. It is seen
that as many as 14 (fourteen) issues have been framed on 18.07.2024 and this
18.7.2024 proceedings read as follows:
‘18.07.2024
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, appears on behalf of the
petitioner; and Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel, appears on behalf of
respondent No. 1 in EL.PET. No. 7 of 2022.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 6 of 85
2026:MNHC:129Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the respective pleadings, the following issues are framed for
determination in the present proceedings:-
1. Whether non-disclosure of non-agricultural lands under Patta No.
176/873 (New) covered by C S Dag No. 894/1015 of Village No. 70
Chajing Part I belonging to Respondent No. 1 (on which Residential
Buildings of Respondent No. 1 stands) in the relevant Column of Part B
Para 7(ii) of the Form-26 Affidavit submitted by the Respondent No. 1
filed along with the Nomination Paper for 20-Langthabal Assembly
Constituency for the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022
amounts to swearing of false affidavit/declaration with regard to the
assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constituting
corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on
the election of the candidate? It may be presumed that a false
declaration impacts the election in respect of election of 20-Langthabal
Assembly Constituency which would materially affect the election of
Respondent No. 1.
2. Whether disclosure of wrong educational qualification of Respondent
No. 1 at para 10 of the Form-26 Affidavit submitted along with the
Nomination Paper for 20-Langthabal Assembly Constituency for the 12th
Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 amounts to swearing of
false affidavit/declaration with regard to the vital information of a
candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constituting corrupt practice
irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of
the candidate? It may be presumed that a false declaration impacts the
election in respect of election of 20-Langthabal Assembly Constituency
and thus, materially affect the election of Respondent No. 1. In the
Form-26 Affidavit submitted by the Respondent No.1, the Respondent
No. 1 has stated that he has passed Bachelor of Textile Engineering.
The Respondent No. 1 has actually passed Bachelor of Textile
Technology.
3. Whether the action of Respondent No. 1 and his son namely, Karam
Gulmit and some other workers in beating Laishram Giri Singh alias
Kokeshor Singh on the Polling Day of 28th February, 2022 at the Polling
Station No. 20/18 amounts to indulging in corrupt practice in Election
which would materially affects the result of the Election?
4. Whether the execution of the work of road construction by the
Respondent No. 1 and his workers without the approval of the
competent authority at (1) Langthabal Kunja NH102 to Mari Longbi (ii)
Langthabal Kunja Mari Longbi to Little Rose Heinoumakhong and (iii)
Lilong Hiyang Road (Meitei Lamkhai) have violated the Model Code of
Conduct during the Election amounts to corrupt practice?
5. Whether distribution of money on behalf of Respondent No. 1 by on
Thiyam Budhichandra Singh with the help of one Laishram Bikram Singh
(Police Officer) amounts to indulging in corrupt practice in the Election?
6. Whether casting of votes of expired voters by impersonation by
supporters of Respondent No. 1 in Polling Station No. 20/25 amounts to
corrupt practice?
7. Whether, there is any cause of action in filing the present Election
Petition; as much as to the fact that, according to the Election Petitioner,
the cause of action of filing the said Election Petition arose only on
13/03/2022?
8. Whether the concise statement of material facts which materially
affected the result of the returned candidate has been pleaded in the
election petition so as to attract Section 100 and 101 of the
Representation of People Act?
9. Whether, material particulars of the allegations and grounds stated in
the Election Petition constitute triable cause?
10. Whether the issues raised are triable issues for the fact that no material
facts and particulars have been stated?
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 7 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
11. Whether, the allegations of corrupt practice be tried in the absence of
Affidavit under Form 25 in terms of Rule 94 of the Representation of
People Act and in absence of material particulars?
12. What is material effect in case of acceptance and whether any lapses of
duties was there of Returning Officer while scrutinizing the nomination
paper?
13. Whether grounds not taken before the Returning Office can be taken in
the Election Petition?
14. Whether present petition is based on frivolous baseless allegation?
List for further proceedings on 08.08.2024.’
7. Learned counsel on both sides very fairly agreed to have the issues
recast.
8. The issues are recast with the consent of learned counsel on both
sides and based on the suggestions of learned counsel on both sides and the
recast issues are as follows:
(i) Whether there is non-disclosure of non-agricultural lands
particulars by the returned candidate?
(ii) Whether there is disclosure of wrong educational qualification
details by the returned candidate?
(iii) Whether there were any lapses qua duties on the part of the
returning officer in scrutiny of nomination papers?
(iv) What other reliefs the election petitioner is entitled to in the
captioned election petition and election recr. petition?
(v) What other reliefs the returned candidate is entitled to in the
captioned election petition and election recr. petition?
9. Learned counsel on both sides had the benefit of perusing the
aforesaid recast issues, agreed to the same and further agreed that
arguments will be advanced on the basis of the recast issues.
10. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel for election petitioner commenced his
submissions. Learned senior counsel submitted that he would
predicate his campaign against the returned candidate’s election on
2(two) grounds i.e., (a) Incorrect disclosure of educational qualification
and (b) non-disclosure of assets. Learned senior counsel submitted
that both these points are predicated on Section 33A of Representation
of Peoples Act, 1951 (‘RP Act’ for the sake of brevity).
11. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit,
learned counsel for returned candidate submitted that he will
commence his submissions after learned senior counsel for election
petitioner concludes.
12. At the request of both sides, list under the cause-list sub
caption ‘Part Heard’ on 09.02.2026.’
(Underlining made now for ease of reference.)
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 8 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
[4] The afore-referred proceedings/order made by this Bench in the
listing of captioned election petition on 03.02.2026 serves at least four purposes
and they are as follows:
(i) in and vide paragraph No. 8, it sets out the recast issues
on the basis of which captioned election petition was heard
out;
(ii) it captures the trajectory which has led to only the election
petitioner and returned candidate being in the fray in
captioned election petition before this Court;
(iii) in and vide paragraph No. 5, the factum of learned counsel
for returned candidate agreeing to have the election
petition heard out without insisting on letting in evidence in
recrimination petition has been captured;
(iv) it makes it clear that though originally several grounds such
as corrupt practices were raised, subsequently election
petitioner descoped the election petition and restricted it to
three points viz., non-disclosure of non-agricultural land,
wrong disclosure of educational qualification and improper
acceptance (non-rejection) of nomination of returned
candidate by RO on the teeth of these 2 points (non-
disclosure and mis-disclosure) being raised as objections.
Ultimately, the election petition was heard out, it was
reserved for judgment and order on 23.06.2026.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 9 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
[5] In and vide judicial order dated 16.08.2024 made by predecessor
Hon’ble Chief Justice, a learned Advocate Commissioner was appointed (with
consent of both sides) for recording evidence in captioned election petition.
Learned Advocate Commissioner so appointed recorded evidence (deposition)
and documents were marked as exhibits. 4 witnesses (PW1 to PW4) deposed
on the side of election petitioner and 103 exhibits were marked. To be noted,
exhibits were given alpha numeric identities starting from P/1(1). (1) i.e.,
number within parenthesis denotes exhibit number and the alpha numeric prefix
before it i.e., P/1 denotes the witness through whom the exhibit was marked.
Therefore P/1(1) denotes/means petitioner’s side exhibit No. 1 marked through
PW1. By way of illustrations P/1(2) denotes exhibit No. 2 marked through PW1,
P/2(1) denotes exhibit No. 1 marked through PW2, so on and so forth. On the
side of returned candidate, 11 witnesses (DW1 to DW11) were examined, 50
exhibits were marked starting from D/1/1 which denotes exhibit No. 1 marked
through DW1, so and so forth. There are some minor differences in alpha
numeric sequential marking but that really does not impact the case and
exhibits and wherever necessary, elsewhere infra in this order/judgment, the
same shall be referred to by that very exact alpha numeric indicator.
[6] As regards the trajectory, this Court, elsewhere infra in this
judgment/order would be extracting and reproducing the proceedings made in
the last 14 listings i.e., listings on 05.05.2025, 11.05.2026, 12.05.2026,
14.05.2026, 15.05.2026, 18.05.2026, 20.05.2026, 21.05.2026, 02.06.2026,
03.06.2026, 11.06.2026, 17.06.2026, 19.06.2026 and 23.06.2026 for an
entirely different purpose which is not directly relevant/significant to the crux
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 10 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
and gravamen of the lis but necessary for capturing the trajectory
comprehensively. Therefore, this Court now proceeds to set out the rival
contentions, discussion on the same and also give its dispositive reasoning.
D. Rival contentions, discussion and dispositive reasoning:
[7] As would be evident from the recast issues (to be noted, issues
were recast with the consent of both sides), the perimeter of the captioned
election petition has been considerably descoped. Originally there were
contentions pertaining to corrupt practices but ultimately what lies within the
descoped perimeter qua legal drill at hand are only 5(five) issues. The issues
are 5 in number but are 3 in terms of kernel of the matter. This Court deems it
appropriate to write that the issues, though 5 in number are only 3(three) in
terms of kernel of the matter as the 3 questions viz., (a) whether there was
non-disclosure of non-agricultural land particulars by the returned candidate (b)
whether there was wrong disclosure of educational qualification by the returned
candidate and (c) whether there were any lapses on the part of the RO in
accepting the nomination papers of returned candidate are questions which
when answered will by way of sequitur answer issue Nos. 4 & 5, the reason
being issue Nos. 4 & 5 are regarding the reliefs which the election petitioner
and the returned candidate (respectively) are entitled to.
[8] The first and second points/issues turn on whether there was non-
disclosure of non-agricultural land and whether educational qualification was
wrongly disclosed by the returned candidate. To examine these two issues, it is
necessary to look at Form-26 of said Election Rules. To be noted, Form-26 of
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 11 of 85
2026:MNHC:129said Election Rules is a statutorily prescribed Form vide which a contestant has
to set out (along with nomination papers before the RO) various details such as
Permanent Account Number (PAN), Income Tax Returns, pending criminal
cases (if any), conviction in criminal cases (if any), details of assets (movable &
immovable), educational qualifications, etc., this Form-26 is in 2(two) parts viz.,
Part – A & Part – B. It is a printed Form (prescribed Form) which asks for specific
details which have to be filled in by the contestant. While Part – A seeks
particulars a little in detail, Part – B is an abstract of the details given in Part –
A. One aspect of this Form which is significant to the issue at hand is, this Form
consists of 11 serial numbers with several sub-serial numbers (under some of
the serial numbers), serial Nos. 1 to 10 find their place under Part – A and serial
No. 11 finds its place under Part – B and Part – B is captioned ‘abstract of details
given in serial No. 1 to 10 of Part- A’. The significant aspect is, it is a case of
filling in a Form which seeks details and it is not a narration or an affidavit
where a contestant can set out details by customising the same qua his/her
details/data and adopt his/her writing style. This Form-26 is a statutory
prescription (prescribed vide a piece of subordinate legislation) qua Rule 4A of
said Election Rules which was inserted in said Election Rules w.e.f. 03.09.2022
and this Rule 4A reads as follows:
‘4A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination
paper. The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the
time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under
sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Act, also deliver to him an affidavit
sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary
in Form 26.’EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 12 of 85
2026:MNHC:129[9] In the case at hand, as we are concerned with issues of non-
disclosure of non-agricultural land (details of immovable assets) and wrong
declaration of educational qualification, this Court deems it appropriate to write
that Serial No. 7 of Form-26 is for filling in details of assets and Serial No. 10 is
for filling in details regarding educational qualifications and to be noted, Serial
No. 7A pertains to movable assets and Serial No. 7B pertains to immovable
assets. A scanned reproduction of entire Form-26 is as follows:
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 13 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 14 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 15 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 16 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 17 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 18 of 85
2026:MNHC:129[10] The first point which is now being discussed pertains to Serial No.
7B. Certified copy of entire Form – 26 filled in and filed by the returned
candidate has been marked as Exhibit P/1(56) and scanned reproduction of the
same is as follows:
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 19 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 20 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 21 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 22 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 23 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 24 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 25 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 26 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 27 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 28 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 29 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 30 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 31 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 32 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 33 of 85
2026:MNHC:129EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 34 of 85
2026:MNHC:129[11] The pleadings of the election petitioner as regards non-disclosure
of agricultural land is articulated in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph No. 18 and
paragraph No. 25 of the election petition and the same read as follows:
’18. That, it is stated that on bare perusal of the Form-26 Affidavit
dated 4-2-2022 filed by the respondent No. 1 along with this nomination
papers, the following defect which are substantial in nature are found
and same should result in rejection of the nomination of Respondent
No. 1 at the time of scrutiny. The followings are the defects which are
substantial in nature for which the nomination paper of the Respondent
shall be liable to be rejected at the time of scrutiny and same will
materially affect the result of the election of the Respondent No. 1:-
a) In Part B para (7) B-(ii) of the FORM – 26 affidavit of
Respondent No. 1 for disclosure of Non Agricultural land, the
Respondent No. 1 has marked/stated ‘NIL’ in the relevant column
of his affidavit which is false because the himself has disclosed
at Part B Para (7) B (iv) that he has two residential buildings
separately on two different Non-Agricultural lands one under
patta No. 176/873 (New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 894/1015 of
village No. 70 chajing Part-I and another under patta No.
176/1423 (New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 894/1521 of Village
No. 70 Chajing Part – I. However, in the column for disclosing of
non-agricultural lands, Respondent No. 1 has stated ‘NIL’
meaning he has no non-agricultural lands which in fact is false.
b) ………………………………………………………………………
In view of the above, false statement in the Form – 26 Affidavit
of Respondent No. 1, the nomination papers of the Respondent No. 1
is liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer under Section 36(2) of
the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 and the Respondent No. 1
should not have been allowed to contest the 12th Manipur Legislative
Assembly Election, 2022 from 20-Langthabal Assembly Constituency.
25. That, it is stated that the Non-Agricultural land under Patta No.
176/873 (New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 894/1015 of village No. 70
Chajing Part – I and another under patta No. 176/1423 (New) covered
by C.S. Dag No. 894/1521 of Village No.70 Chajing Part – I which
belonged to the Respondent No. 1 is well substantiated by the certified
Copy of the Jamabandi / Patta of the two said Non-Agricultural lands
issued by Revenue Administration of Imphal West District, Manipur.
Annexure – A/6 is the true and correct photocopy of the
certified copy of the Patta No. 176/873 (New) covered by C.S.
Dag No. 894/1015 of village No. 70 Chajing Part – I with
verification for easy reference.
Annexure – A/7 is the true and correct photocopy of the
certified copy of the Patta No. 176/1423 (New) covered by C.S.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 35 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
Dag No. 894/1521 of village No. 70 Chajing Part – I with
verification for easy reference.’
The above has been controverted by the returned candidate in
sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph No. 16 and paragraph No. 22 of his written
statement and the same read as follows:
’16. a) That with reference to Para 18 (a) of the election petition
under reply, the answering Respondent No. 1 denies the contention
made therein and begs to submit that the Petitioner is trying to mislead
the Court by way of creating illusions by interpreting that Non-
Agricultural and Residential Building are same when the prescribed form
of Affidavit under Form-26 has specifically made different category for
both the Non-Agricultural Land and Residential Building and as far as
record of right maintained by the Revenue Department, Govt. of
Manipur is concerned, there is no category of Non-Agricultural Land and
it is either Agricultural or Homestead land or Shop-site plot and as such
the contention made therein are vague and misleading and merely an
allegation without any basis. And, moreover, as regards the
properties/assets, what was intended by the Election Commission as
well as the various judgement of the Supreme Court of India was that
of non-disclosure, however, there is no concealment by the answering
Respondent No.1 and have declared the same in the Nomination Paper.
22. That in reply to the Para No. 25 of the election petition, the
answering Respondent denies the allegations and begs to submit that
the same has been already replied at the foregoing para No. 16 (A)
above in the Written Statement.’[12] A careful perusal of the prescribed Form-26 (scanned and
reproduced supra), Form-26 as filled in and filed by the returned candidate (also
scanned and reproduced supra), more particularly serial No. 7B and rival
pleadings (extracted and reproduced supra) make it clear that the entire point
pertains to two parcels of homestead land (this Court is informed that the two
parcels are contiguous) comprised in CS Dag Nos. 894/1015 and 894/1521 vide
Patta Nos. 176/873 and 176/1423 (new pattas) admeasuring 0.132 acres
(5749.92 sq. ft.) and 0.033 acres (1437.48 sq. ft.) respectively. This land shall
be referred to as ‘said land’ for the sake of convenience and clarity. While the
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 36 of 85
2026:MNHC:129returned candidate has clearly disclosed that he owns said land vide (iv)
{residential buildings} of serial No. 7B of Form – 26, the contention of election
petitioner is, returned candidate has filled in ‘NIL’ in the column vide (ii) of serial
No. 7B of Form – 26 {non-agricultural land}. To put it differently, returned
candidate has clearly disclosed that he owns said land (homestead land) and
has also disclosed the built-up area (super structure, standing on said land) vide
(iv) of serial No. 7B captioned ‘residential buildings’ (besides mentioning the
same as his residential address) but has not entered details of said land again
in another column i.e., (ii) of serial No. 7B captioned ‘non-agricultural land’. The
answer of returned candidate is, categories of lands in revenue records of
Manipur vide MLR & LR Act and MLR & LR Rules are agricultural, homestead
and shop-site plot and there is no classification with the nomenclature ‘non-
agricultural land’. The further contention of the returned candidate is, he has in
any event disclosed that he owns said land and therefore, it is not a case of
non-disclosure of immovable assets.
[13] It would be desirable to discuss the case laws pressed into service
by both sides after setting out rival contentions qua 2nd point/issue No. 2 also
as there is considerable overlap and commonality in the propositions for which
the case laws were pressed into service. Therefore, this Court now proceeds to
set out and discuss point No. 2/issue No. 2. As already alluded to supra, point
No. 2/issue No. 2 is alleged wrong disclosure of educational qualification. Exhibit
P/1(56) which was marked by consent, about which there is allusion elsewhere
supra also, is Form-26 filled in and filed by the returned candidate. This Exhibit
P/1(56) brings to light that while filling in serial No. 10 (captioned ‘my
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 37 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
educational qualification is as under’) returned candidate has written bachelor
of Textile Engineering from Government Central Textile Institute, Kanpur (under
Kanpur University) in the year 1987. This ‘Government Central Textile Institute,
Kanpur (under Kanpur University)’ shall be referred to as ‘said institute’ for the
sake of convenience and clarity. The case of the election petitioner is, returned
candidate has passed bachelor in ‘Textile Technology’ from said institute
whereas he has mentioned the same as ‘Textile Engineering’. To buttress this
point, the election petitioner has taken the RTI route, obtained details of said
institute and marked the same as Exhibit P/1(65) which contains details about
the said institute. In and vide Exhibit P/1(65), it has been set out that while B.
Tech in Textile Technology was a course available in said institute since its
inception in 1958, B. Tech in Textile Engineering was introduced much later
only in 2005. To be noted, the ‘Public Information Officer’ (‘PIO’ for the sake of
brevity) of said institute, Ms. Seema Shukla (Librarian) was examined as DW-
11 and Exhibits D/13 to D/16 being RTI application dated 31.08.2022, RTI reply
dated 16.09.2022 certified copy of statement of marks in final B. Text. (Textile
Technology) qua returned candidate in 1987 in said institute and letter dated
21.08.1982 issued by the Under Secretary of Government of Manipur, Education
Department and certified by U.P. Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur were
marked through DW-10 (to be noted, returned candidate examined himself as
DW-10). These exhibits were put to PIO DW-11, she affirmed the same and her
affirmations were again marked as Exhibits 1 to 4 (through DW-11) but
strangely they have been assigned Exhibit Nos. D14/1, D15/1, D15/2, D16/1,
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 38 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
D16/2. Nonetheless as these Exhibits were marked by consent, this Court
refrains from dilating more on these alpha numeric indicators.
[14] As regards rival pleadings qua 2nd point/issue No. 2, contention of
the election petitioner are articulated in sub-paragraph b) of paragraph No. 18
and paragraph No. 26 of the election petition and the same read as follows:
’18. That, it is stated that on bare perusal of the Form-26 Affidavit
dated 4-2-2022 filed by the respondent No. 1 along with his
nomination papers, the following defect which are substantial in
nature are found and same should result in rejection of the
nomination of Respondent No. 1 at the time of scrutiny. The
followings are the defects which are substantial in nature for
which the nomination paper of the Respondent shall be liable to
be rejected at the time of scrutiny and same will materially affect
the result of the election of the Respondent No.1 :-
a) ………………………………………………………………………
b) At Para 10 of the FORM – 26 Affidavit of Respondent No. 1
for disclosing the Educational Qualification, the Respondent No.
1 has stated he has passed Bachelor of Textile Engineering from
Government Central Textile Institute, Kanpur (Under Kanpur
University) in the year 1987. The same information is also false,
as upon enquiry, it is learnt that the Respondent No. 1 has
passed Bachelor in Textile Technology (B. Text) from the said
Institution.’
In view of the above, false statements in the Form-26
Affidavit of Respondent No. 1, the nomination papers of the
Respondent No. 1 is liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer
under Section 36(2) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951
and the Respondent No. 1 should not have been allowed to
contest the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022
from 20-Langthabal Assembly Constituency.
26. That, it is stated that the Respondent No. 1 have stated that he
has passed Bachelor in Textile Engineering in 1987 from Government
Central Textile Institute is in fact false and same would be well
substantiated from the perusal of webpage of “About Institute” of the
Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology Institute (Earlier known as
Government Central Textile Institute) downloaded from the website of
the Institute where it is clearly indicated that Under Graduate course of
B. Tech in Textile Engineering was incepted/established only in 2005
and hence, the chance of passing Bachelor in Textile Engineering in
1987 by the Respondent No. 1 is NIL. One Electorate of 20-Langthabal
Assembly Constituency namely Sanabam Ambison Singh have requested
the Director, Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology Institute Kanpur to
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 39 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
provide a certified copy of “About Institute” uploaded in the website of
the Institute on 8-4-22 appending the downloaded copy from the web
page of the Institute. The Reply of Director, Uttar Pradesh Textile
Technology Institute to the application dated 8-4-2022 can be placed
on record at the relevant time of trial of the present case provided the
same is furnished by Director of Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology
Institute otherwise this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for
production of the said document by the said Institute at the appropriate
stage of the trial of the present case.
The said Shri Sanabam Ambison Singh vide Application dated
28-3-2022 have requested for providing bona fide certificate of
Respondent No. 1 who has passed from the esteemed Institute in 1987
in Textile Technology. The Director, U.P. Textile Technology Institute,
Kanpur vide its letter dated 1-4-2020 have informed that the
Respondent No. 1 did B.Text (Textile Technology) in 1987. Shri
Sanabam Ambison Singh have also submitted application dated 25-3-
2021 for providing the relevant list of passed out students in Textile
Technology in the year 1987 from Government Central Textile Institute,
Kanpur now Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur and the
Director, Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur vide letter
dated 1-4-2022 have furnished the list with the name of the respondent
No. 1 at Serial No. 10 of the said list.
Annexure-A/8 is the true and original copy of the personal
copy/office copy of the Application dated 8-4-2022 along with
the about Institute web page of “About Institute” downloaded
from the website of Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology Institute
which was handed over by one Sanabam Ambeson Singh to the
present petitioner with verification for easy reference.
Annexure-A/9 (Colly) is the true and correct photocopy of the
Original Application Personal Copy dated 28-3-2022 along with
Reply dated 1-4-2022 and Original Application Personal Copy
dated 25-3-2022 with Reply dated 4-1-2022 with verification for
easy reference.’
The above has been responded to by the returned candidate in
sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 16 and paragraph 23 of the written statement
of returned candidate and the same read as follows:
’16. That with reference to Para Nos. 18 of the election petition under
reply, it is vehemently denied that “on perusal of the Form-26 Affidavit
dated 04/02/2022 along with nomination papers of the answering
Respondent, there are defect which are substantial in nature and the
same should result in rejection of the nomination of the answering
Respondent at the time of scrutiny.” and beg to submit that, there
having no substantial defect that would materially affect the election,
the nomination paper was duly accepted.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 40 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
a) ……………………………………………………………………
‘b) That with reference to Para 18 (b) of the election petition
under reply, the answering Respondent denies the contention
therein and begs to submit that the answering Respondent No.
1 was a state nominee for B.E. for the course of Textile
Technology. And, the Government of Manipur vide letter dated
21/08/19892 being No. 6/3/77-SE (PT.II) of the Secretariat:
Education Department have specifically mentioned that, the
answering Respondent No. 1 have been selected for admission
to 1st year B.E. and B.E. stands for Bachelor of Engineering with
the course being Textile Technology and hence, the answering
Respondent No. 1 have as per records mentioned his Educational
Qualification as Bachelor of Textile Engineering. Moreover, it is
begged to mentioned herein that the answering Respondent No.
1 have undergone 4 years in the said course which is an
Engineering Course. And there has been no objections from any
quarter including the election petitioner in the
nominations/affidavits filed for earlier assembly elections. And
the Election Petitioner also failed to specify how such, defect, if
it is of such a substantial nature as per the Petitioner, would
materially affect the election.
It is further beg to submit that the said objections was
turned down by the Returning Officer 20-langthabal as there is
no defect of substantial character and had there been any defect,
the same could have been rectified at the time of scrutiny.
23. That in reply to the Para Nos. 26 and 27 of the election petition,
the answering Respondent denies the allegations and contentions
made therein and beg to submit that, the answering Respondent No.
1 was a state nominee for B.E. for the course of Textile Technology.
And, the Government of Manipur vide letter dated 21/08/19892 being
No. 6/3/77-SE (PT.II) of the Secretariat: Education Department have
specifically mentioned that, the answering Respondent No. 1 have
been selected for admission to 1st year B.E. and B.E. stands for
Bachelor of Engineering with the course being Textile Technology and
hence, the answering Respondent No. 1 have as per records
mentioned his Educational Qualification as Bachelor of Textile
Engineering. Moreover, it is begged to mentioned herein that the
answering Respondent No. 1 have undergone 4 years in the said
course which is an Engineering Course. And there has been no
objections from any quarter including the election petitioner in the
nominations/affidavits filed for earlier assembly elections.
That, the answering Respondent No. 1 further denies the
allegations that the on the “webpage of “About Institute” of the Uttar
Pradesh Textile Technology Institute (Earlier Known as Government
Central Textile Institute) downloaded from the website of the
Institute where it is clearly indicated that Under Graduate course of
B.Tech in Textile Engineering was incepted/established only in 2005
and hence, the chance of passing Bachelor of Textile Engineering in
1987 by the Respondent No. 1 is NIL” it is humbly beg submit that
from the said information, it can be perceived that the B. Tech Textile
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 41 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
Engineering would have been introduce in the year 2005 at Uttar
Pradesh Textile Technology Institute (Earlier Known as Government
Central Textile Institute) and the said course is equivalent to Bachelor
in Textile Engineering undergone by the answering Respondent cannot
be established. In a plain reading of “B. Tech Textile Engineering” it
can be presume as Bachelor of Technology in Textile Engineering,
however, the fact remains the same that the answering Respondent
was a state nominee to undergo B.E. (Bachelor of Engineering) in
Textile Technology which is a 4 years course equivalent to engineering
course.
That, with respect to the contention that “The Director, U.P.
Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur vide its letter dated 1/4/2020
have informed that the Respondent No. 1 did B. Text (Textile
Technology) in 1987” it is beg to submit that vide the said information
furnished, it cannot be established that the said course is not an
engineering course as the fact remains the same that the answering
Respondent No.1 was a State Government nominee to undergo B.E.
course in Textile Technology.’
[15] As regards point No.2/issue No. 2, to put it in a nutshell, there is
no disputation about returned candidate having studied in said institute, having
undergone a four year Bachelors Degree course and having passed the
same/obtained degree in 1987. The only issue is, while this four years Bachelors
Degree obtained by returned candidate from said institute is in ‘textile
technology’, he has described the same as ‘textile engineering’ in Serial No. 10
of Form-26.
[16] This Court, having set out the rival contentions on the two core
points, now proceeds to delve into the case laws pressed into service by both
sides as regards the afore-referred two points. Learned senior counsel for
election petitioner pressed into service 8 (eight) case laws and an adumbration
of the same is as follows:
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 42 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
(i) Union of India vs. Association for Democratic
Reforms & Anr. [(2002)5 SCC 294]
(ii) People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. vs.
Union of India & Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 399]
(iii) Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India
& Anr.[(2014) 14 SCC 189]
(iv) Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC
467]
(v) Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh vs. Mairembam
Prithviraj [(2016) SCC OnLine Mani 30]
(vi) Mairembam Prithviraj vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra
Singh [(2017) 2 SCC 487]
(vii) Karikho Kri vs. Nuney Tayang & Anr. [(2024) 15 SCC
112]
(viii) Ajmera Shyam vs. Kova Laxmi & Ors. [(2026) 3 SCC
373]
[17] Learned counsel for returned candidate pressed into service 11(eleven) case laws and an adumbration of same is as follows:
(i) Jagan Nath vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors. [(1954) 1 SCC
57]
(ii) Rangilal Choudhuruy vs. Dahu Sao & Ors. [AIR 1962
SC 1248]
(iii) Harcharan Singh vs. S. Mohinder Singh & Ors.[AIR
1968 SC 1500]
2 SCC 45]
(v) G.S. Iqbal vs. K.M. Khadar & Ors.[(2009) 11 SCC
398]
(vi) M. Chandra vs. M. Thangamuthu & Anr. [(2010) 9
SCC 712]
(vii) Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari
[(2012) 3 SCC 314]
(viii) Shambhu Prasad Sharama vs. Shri Charandas
Mahant & Ors. [(2012) 11 SCC 390]
(ix) Karikho Kri vs. Nuney Tayang & Anr. [(2024) 15 SCC
112]
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 43 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
(x) Ajmera Shyam vs. Kova Laxmi & Ors. [(2026) 3 SCC
373]
(xi) Soibam Subhaschandra Singh vs. Sagolsem Kebi &
2 Ors. [Judgment & order dated 05.11.2025 made in
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 by High Court of Manipur]
[18] As regards Union of India vs. Association for Democratic
Reforms & Anr. [(2002)5 SCC 294] the judgment was rendered by Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 02.05.2002 and the same was pressed into service by
learned senior counsel for election petitioner for the proposition that
voters/electors have fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) to know
the background/antecedents of candidates. Association for Democratic
Reforms was rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.05.2002 and on facts,
it originated as a public interest litigation filed in Delhi High Court seeking better
transparency in elections. The matter travelled to Hon’ble Supreme Court and
Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through a three member Bench vide order
dated 02.05.2002 held that the voters’/electors’ right to know the background
of candidates is an integral part of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution. It was further held that an informed voter is essential for
meaningful democracy and it was held that Article 324 vests ECI with plenary
powers and such powers include powers to call upon candidates to file affidavits
disclosing criminal antecedents, pending criminal cases, assets and liabilities
(including those of spouse and dependents) and educational qualifications.
[19] People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. vs. Union
of India & Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 399] was also pressed into service for the
same proposition i.e., that voters’ right to know relevant background of
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 44 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
candidates is a fundamental right vide Article 19(1)(a) and Article 324 vests ECI
with adequate powers in this regard. PUCL was rendered on 13.03.2003 and
PUCL was also relied upon to highlight that Section 33B which was inserted qua
RP Act with retrospective effect from 02.05.2002, it restricted the information
candidates were required to disclose and Section 33B of RP Act was held to be
unconstitutional. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to write that after
Association for Democratic Reforms case, Section 33B was enacted and it
restricted the information candidates were required to disclose. In PUCL, inter-
alia constitutional validity of Section 33B was assailed as a provision violating
fundamental rights of voters and ultimately in PUCL directions given in
Association for Democratic Reforms were resurrected, accepting the
ground that Section 33B virtually nullified the directions given by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms case. To be noted,
PUCL was also rendered by a three member Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
[20] Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India &
Anr.[(2014) 14 SCC 189] was pressed into service by learned senior counsel
for election petitioner for the same/similar proposition i.e., proposition that
disclosure by candidates is essential as right of voters/electors to know such
details has been held to be a fundamental right of a voter vide Article 19(1)(a).
Resurgence India was rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.09.2013
and in Resurgence India, afore-referred Association for Democratic
Reforms and PUCL were reiterated. Resurgence India, on facts, was a case
which dealt with the question as to whether candidates can leave certain
columns blank in Form-26.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 45 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
[21] Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 467]
was also pressed into service for the proposition that voters’ right to know the
details of a candidate is a fundamental right vide Article 19(1)(a). On facts,
Krishnamoorthy pertains to a local body election in Tamil Nadu and it was a
case of a candidate disclosing one criminal case i.e., one crime number but not
disclosing that investigation had concluded in eight other criminal cases, charge
sheets had been filed and trial was pending against him. To be noted,
Association for Democratic Reforms and PUCL was reiterated in
Krishnamoorthy.
[22] Mairembam Prithviraj vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh
[(2017) 2 SCC 487] {judgment dated 28.10.2016} was pressed into service
to buttress the argument that nomination of the returned candidate should have
been rejected vide Section 32(2)(b) of RP Act for non-disclosure qua immovable
assets and wrong disclosure qua educational qualification. On facts,
Mairembam Prithviraj is a case where a candidate claimed that he has an
MBA degree from Mysore University but was unable to produce any document
to support this claim.
[23] To be noted, afore-referred Mairembam Prithviraj went to
Hon’ble Supreme Court from this Court (High Court of Manipur) and the order
of Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court is 2016 SCC OnLine Mani 30
(29.02.2016).
[24] Karikho Kri vs. Nuney Tayang & Anr. [(2024) 15 SCC 112]
(judgement dated 09.04.2024) was pressed into service for the proposition that
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 46 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
RO can reject nomination papers if there is defect and in the instant case, there
should have been rejection. On facts, Karikho Kri arose from Arunachal
Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections. Non-disclosure of owning of two
wheelers, four wheeler by self, wife, son in Form-26 was the main issue. It was
contended, by placing reliance on Karikho Kri that non-disclosure of said land
as non-agricultural land vide serial No. 7B (ii) of Form-26 and disclosing
educational qualification as bachelor degree in Textile Engineering after having
obtained Bachelors Degree in Textile Technology is substantial and the
nomination ought to have been rejected.
[25] The 8th and last case law relied on by the learned senior counsel
for election petitioner is the oft-quoted Ajmera Shyam vs. Kova Laxmi &
Ors. [(2026) 3 SCC 373] {judgment dated 14.08.2025}. Ajmera was a case
of non-disclosure of income (assets) as shown in the income tax returns for
four financial years out of the last five financial years and filling in NIL in relevant
columns. The key issue was whether non-disclosure of past tax returns/omitting
to mention past tax returns is of a substantial character.
[26] As regards the returned candidate, Jagan Nath vs. Jaswant
Singh & Ors. [(1954) 1 SCC 57] {judgment dated 20.01.1954} was pressed
into service for the proposition that interference in an election petition should
not be done lightly. Rangilal Choudhuruy vs. Dahu Sao & Ors. [AIR 1962
SC 1248] {judgment dated 26.04.1961} , Harcharan Singh vs. S. Mohinder
Singh & Ors.[AIR 1968 SC 1500] {judgment dated 01.05.1968} were
pressed into service for the proposition that with regard to non-disclosure,
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 47 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
omission, wrong disclosure, a distinction has to be made between those which
are substantial and those which are non-substantial/insubstantial.
[27] G.S. Iqbal vs. K.M. Khadar & Ors.[(2009) 11 SCC 398]
{judgment dated 19.03.2009} was pressed into service for the proposition that
when there is no case of non-compliance qua provisions of RP Act and when
omission is not substantial, RO cannot reject the nomination. M. Chandra vs.
M. Thangamuthu & Anr. [(2010) 9 SCC 712] {judgment dated
07.09.2010} was cited to buttress the argument that election petition cannot
be filed on frivolous grounds. Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo
Bhandari [(2012) 3 SCC 314] {judgment dated 01.02.2012} was cited for
the proposition that an election petition (to succeed) should demonstrate that
omission, non-disclosure or mis-disclosure has materially affected the outcome
of the election. Shambhu Prasad Sharama vs. Shri Charandas Mahant &
Ors. [(2012) 11 SCC 390] {judgment dated 03.07.2012} was cited for the
proposition that in cases of misdescription, the point to be seen is, whether
there is substantial compliance as regards requirements qua Form-26.
Interestingly Karikho Kri, which was pressed into service by the election
petitioner, was relied upon by the returned candidate also but for the
proposition that small property not being mentioned really does not matter and
it is not substantial in nature. Similarly Ajmera cited on election petitioner’s
side being Ajmera Shyam vs. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors. [(2026) 3 SCC
373] was pressed into service by learned counsel for returned candidate also
but for the proposition that as regards Form-26, interference is warranted only
when omission is of a substantial nature consequently affecting the electoral
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 48 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
process and impacting voters’ choice. Soibam Subhaschandra Singh vs.
Sagolsem Kebi & 2 Ors. [Judgment & order dated 05.11.2025 made in
EL. PETN. No. 11 of 2022 by Manipur High Court] was pressed into service
to drive home the point that there are only three types of lands in Manipur and
there is no revenue classification in Manipur under the head ‘Non-agricultural
land”.
[28] Though 8(eight) case laws on the side of the election petitioner
and 11(eleven) on the side of the returned candidate were pressed into service,
in effect it is not 19(nineteen) but 17(seventeen) in all as 2(two) case laws viz.,
Ajmera and Karikho Kri have been cited by both sides.
[29] Before setting out discussion and dispositive reasoning qua case
laws, this Court deems it appropriate to respectfully refer to the celebrated
Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
[(2002) 3 SCC 533]. Padma Sundara Rao was rendered by a Constitution
Bench and therefore, this Court respectfully refers to Padma Sundara Rao
principle as ‘declaration of law’ rather than ‘ratio’. On facts, Padma Sundara
Rao arose out of land acquisition proceedings. The question was whether State
gets a fresh period to make a declaration after land acquisition proceedings are
quashed. In this factual backdrop, Hon’ble Supreme Court declared the law as
to how case laws should be cited in judgments. It was made clear that case
laws should be cited only after setting out facts and that even one difference in
fact can make a world of difference, most relevant paragraph in Padma
Sundara Rao is paragraph No. 9 and the same reads as follows:
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 49 of 85
2026:MNHC:129‘9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing
as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the
decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating
the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a
legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial
utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case,
said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board. Circumstantial
flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of
difference between conclusions in two cases.’[30] This Court, as part of instant legal drill, respectfully follows
Padma Sundara Rao declaration of law in applying afore-referred case laws
to factual matrix of case at hand.
[31] Association for Democratic Reforms arose out of a Public
Interest Litigation (PiL) initially filed in Delhi High Court seeking transparency in
elections, PUCL was filed directly in Hon’ble Supreme Court by resorting to
Article 32 inter alia assailing Section 33 B of RP Act on the ground that it nullifies
the directions given in Association for Democratic Reforms and
Krishnamoorthy which pertains to a local body election (as already alluded to
supra) is a case where the candidate completely suppressed 8(eight) criminal
cases, charge-sheets have been filed in the same and active trial is pending
against him. In Krishnamoorthy, Association for Democratic Reforms
and PUCL were reiterated. While the principle in Association for Democratic
Reforms and PUCL i.e., the principle that the rights of the voters to know
details about the candidates is a facet of fundamental right vide Article 19(1)(a)
is sacrosanct and indisputable, in the instant case the same serve as an
established legal platform on which the factual matrix of case at hand has to be
tested applying the principles in other case laws as touch stone to examine
whether non-disclosure and wrong disclosure are substantial, materially
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 50 of 85
2026:MNHC:129affecting the election or are the same ‘insubstantial’. As regards factual matrix
of instant case, the question as to whether afore-referred non-disclosure of
homestead land under non-agricultural land head also and describing Bachelors
Degree in Textile Technology as Bachelors Degree in Textile Engineering are
substantial in nature materially affecting the outcome of the election is the
point. In this regard, Resurgence India does not come to the aid of the
election petitioner as Resurgence India is a case where the candidate left
several columns in Form-26 blank. It is in this factual backdrop that Hon’ble
Supreme Court made it clear that columns in Form-26 should not be left blank
and leaving columns blank in Form-26 causes infraction of fundamental rights
of voters qua Article 19(1)(a). It was also made clear that candidates must
explicitly state ‘nil’ or ‘not applicable’, should not leave columns blank and
Resurgence India was in the context of candidates leaving columns blank
regarding criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications
in Form-26. This Court has no hesitation in writing that Pukhrem
Sharatchandra Singh/Mairembam Prithiviraj also do not come to the aid
of the election petitioner as Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh/Mairembam
Prithiviraj is a case where a candidate claimed in Form-26 that he has an MBA
(Master of Business Administration) Degree but was unable to produce any
document to support his claim. In complete contradistinction, in the case at
hand, the fact that the candidate studied in said institution and obtained a
4(four) years Bachelors Degree is not in dispute at all. The returned candidate
having obtained a 4(four) years Bachelors Degree in ‘Textile Technology’ had
referred to the same as ‘Textile Engineering’ in Serial No. 10 column of Form
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 51 of 85
2026:MNHC:12926 and this alone is the issue. As regards Karikho Kri, it does not come to the
aid of the election petitioner, as on facts, it was a case where the returned
candidate had not disclosed ownership of a Hero Honda CD dawn motor cycle,
Kinetic Zing Scooty owned by his wife, Maruti Omni, Ambulance owned by his
wife and TVS star city motor cycle owned by his son. The returned candidate
had also not submitted ‘No Due Certificate’ with regard to electricity charges
and this was also an issue. In Karikho Kri, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
every defect in a nomination cannot straight away be termed to be of such a
character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would have to
turn on its own individual facts in so far as this aspect is concerned. Hon’ble
Supreme Court also made it clear that the case laws on the subject manifest
that Hon’ble Supreme Court has always drawn a distinction between non-
disclosure of substantial issues as opposed to insubstantial issues. The most
relevant paragraph is paragraph No. 43 and the same reads as follows:
’43. Having considered the issue, we are of the firm view that every
defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such
character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would
have to turn on its own individual facts, insofar as that aspect is
concerned. The case law on the subject also manifests that this Court
has always drawn a distinction between non-disclosure of substantial
issues as opposed to insubstantial issues, which may not impact one’s
candidature or the result of an election. The very fact that Section
36(4) of the 1951 Act speaks of the Returning Officer not rejecting a
nomination unless he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial
nature demonstrates that this distinction must always be kept in mind
and there is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure,
irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to
a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting the result
of the election or amounting to “undue influence” so as to qualify as a
corrupt practice.’[32] In Karikho Kri, Hon’ble Supreme Court took an illustrative
approach by referring to watches and held that if a candidate and his family
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 52 of 85
2026:MNHC:129owned several high priced watches which would aggregate to a huge sum in
terms of monetary value, it obviously has to be disclosed as it would constitute
an asset of high value and also reflect upon lavish life-style of the candidate.
Suppressing this would constitute undue influence whereas if a candidate and
his family members own a simple watch which is not high priced, not mentioning
about such watches and value of such watches may not amount to a defect at
all. It was reiterated that each case would therefore has to be judged on its
own facts. This has been set out in unequivocal terms with clarity and specificity
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 47 of Karikho Kri and the same
reads as follows:
’47. Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the
voter’s “right to know” is absolute and a candidate contesting the
election must be forthright about all his particulars, we are not inclined
to accept the blanket proposition that a candidate is required to lay his
life out threadbare for examination by the electorate. His “right to
privacy” would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern
to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office. In
that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a
candidate would not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a
substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every
item of movable property that he or his dependent family members
own, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and furniture, etc.
unless the same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in
itself or reflect upon his candidature, in terms of his lifestyle, and
require to be disclosed. Every case would have to turn on its own
peculiarities and there can be no hard-and-fast or straitjacketed rule
as to when the non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a
candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character. For
example, a candidate and his family who own several high-priced
watches, which would aggregate to a huge figure in terms of monetary
value, would obviously have to disclose the same as they constitute an
asset of high value and also reflect upon his lavish lifestyle.
Suppression of the same would constitute “undue influence” upon the
voter as that relevant information about the candidate is being kept
away from the voter. However, if a candidate and his family members
each own a simple watch, which is not highly priced, suppression of
the value of such watches may not amount to a defect at all. Each case
would, therefore, have to be judged on its own facts.’EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 53 of 85
2026:MNHC:129[33] This Court has no hesitation in writing that Karikho Kri comes to
the aid of the returned candidate rather than the election petitioner. In the case
at hand, it is not a case of non-disclosure. There is no disputation or
contestation that there was disclosure about said land. The point is, the
disclosure having been made under sub-Clause (iv) of serial No. 7B of Form-26
in the column captioned ‘residential buildings’ the same has not been repeated
again under sub-Clause (ii) of serial No. 7B of Form-26 in the column captioned
‘non-agricultural land’. As regards the case laws cited by the returned candidate,
Jagan Nath, on facts deals with failure to join a candidate who had withdrawn
his candidature arose and the ratio is, an election contest is a creation of a
statute and not a subject of common law or equity and rules must be strictly
followed but it was made clear that minor procedural mistakes like leaving out
a party who has withdrawn his candidature is not automatically fatal and cannot
be done by strictly adhering to CPC. To be noted, RP Act vide Section 87(1)
makes it clear that CPC shall be adhered to ‘as nearly as may be’ in trial of
election petitions. To put it differently, CPC is not strictly applicable with all
rigour to RP Act proceedings. Rangilal Choudhuruy on facts is one where, in
the nomination paper, proposer had mistakenly written the name of the
constituency as ‘Bihar’ instead of ‘Dhanbad’. Harcharan Singh on facts is one
where the candidate won a seat in Punjab Vidhan Sabha from Zira constituency
while he was registered as a voter in Gidderbha constituency. The question was
whether clerical omission of a candidate’s age and house number renders the
nomination void. It was held that a minor clerical or technical omissions does
not invalidate nomination. Durai Muthuswami arose from Tamil Nadu where
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 54 of 85
2026:MNHC:129the winning margin was 72 votes and the question as to whether the result was
materially affected arose. On facts, the contention was, the nomination of the
returned candidate ought not to have been accepted owing to he having a
subsisting contract with the highways department of the State of Tamil Nadu.
G.S. Iqbal was a case where a candidate belonging to one registered but not
recognized political party contested in the reserved symbol of another
recognized political party when the two political parties had formed a pre poll
alliance. M. Chandra was a case where a candidate contested in a reserved
constituency though she was professing and practicing Christianity. Mangani
Lal on facts was a case of non-disclosure of first wife and dependent children
born from that wedlock and their assets and liabilities. Shambhu Prashad on
facts was a case of not filing prescribed affidavits showing debts/dues to
Government.
[34] Karikho Kri has already been discussed in detail supra and this
Court has come to the conclusion that Karikho Kri comes to the aid of the
returned candidate rather than the election petitioner. Ajmera Shyam also
has already been alluded to supra and it is a case where the returned candidate
filled in NIL with regard to income tax returns for 4 out of 5 preceding
assessment years and this was a case where it was held that incomplete
disclosure need not necessarily be a corrupt practice. Soibam
Subhaschandra Singh on facts is a case where the classification of lands in
Manipur was gone into but the same was rendered by a Hon’ble Single Bench
of this Court but it has been carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court, notice has been
issued vide order dated 08.12.2025 in C.A. No. 014426/2025 and Hon’ble
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 55 of 85
2026:MNHC:129Supreme Court is seized of the matter. Therefore as matter of judicial discipline
the same is not being gone into. As regards the case laws pressed into service
by the returned candidate, by respectfully applying Padma Sundara Rao
declaration of law, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that
the question of whether a particular non-disclosure or mis-disclosure is
substantial or insubstantial has to be gone into but by examining the peculiar
facts of each case. In the light of the discussion and dispositive reasoning thus
far, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the returned
candidate having disclosed said land vide column captioned ‘residential
buildings’ {serial No. 7B(iv)}, not mentioning the same again vide column
captioned ‘non-agricultural land’ {serial No. 7B(ii)}, is not non-disclosure much
less non-disclosure of substantial nature materially affecting the outcome of the
elections. To be noted, MLR & LR Act and MLR & LR Rules does not have a non-
agricultural land classification. To be noted, Revenue Officer of Lilong, Chajing
i.e., Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC) deposed as PW4 and he has affirmed that as
per land records in Manipur, lands are classified into four categories i.e.,
Ingkhol(Homestead land), Agricultural land (Phourel), Agricultural land
(Anganphou) and Agricultural land (Taothabi). This Court is informed that
Phourel, Anganphou and Taothabi are varieties of rice. PW4 has also
categorically deposed that there is no classification of land as non-agricultural
land in Manipur. The relevant portion of deposition of PW4 are as follows:
‘Q2. Can you specify the classification of land exist in the State of
Manipur?
Ans. As per land record, there are 4(four) classification of lands namely
i. Ingkhol(Homestead land), ii. Agricultural land (Phourel), iii.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 56 of 85
2026:MNHC:129Agricultural land (Anganphou) & iv. Agricultural land (Taothabi) in the
State of Manipur.
3. Is there any Jamabandi Patta in existence in the State of Manipur
with the classification of land as non-agricultural land?
Ans. No.’
To be further noted, there is absolutely no material to
demonstrate that the outcome of the election has been materially affected. As
regards educational qualification, as there is no disputation that the returned
candidate studied in said institute and obtained a 4 year Bachelors Degree
pertaining to Textile Industry the distinction between ‘Textile Technology’ and
‘Textile Engineering’ certainly does not fall in the category of substantial mis-
disclosure if the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court to distinguish
between substantial and non-substantial/insubstantial non-disclosures/mis-
disclosures are applied.
E. DISPOSITIVE REASONING QUA CRUX AND GRAVAMEN OF
LIS:
[35] (a) The returned candidate has not filled in details of said land in
Sl. No.7B (ii) captioned ‘Non-Agricultural Land” though he has clearly
given/filled in details of said land in Sl. No. 7B(iv) of Form 26 captioned
‘Residential Buildings’ – Whether this amounts to ‘substantial non-disclosure’
materially affecting the election? (b) The returned candidate has obtained 4
years Bachelors degree from said institute in a subject pertaining to textile
industry – Whether mentioning / filling in this as ‘Bachelor of Textile
Engineering’ instead of ‘Bachelor of Textile Technology’ in Sl. No. 10 (Sl.
No. 10 captioned ‘My Educational Qualification is as under:’) of Form 26,
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 57 of 85
2026:MNHC:129amounts to ‘substantial non-disclosure’ materially affecting the election? (c) (a)
and (b) were raised as objections before RO – Whether RO fell in error in not
rejecting the nomination of returned candidate? To be noted, from here on, the
short form ‘Sl. No.’ is being used to denote ‘serial No.’ for the sake of brevity.
The aforementioned three points constitute the epicentre of the
lis and nucleus of the legal drill at hand and as already alluded to elsewhere
supra in this order/judgment, determination qua afore referred three points will
be the clear clincher in the legal tussle at hand i.e., legal tussle between the
losing candidate and returned candidate (in this Court) who were locked in an
electoral tussle at the hustings.
Though there is discussion and dispositive reasoning qua afore
referred 3 points for determination, this Court deems it appropriate to plough
into the same in greater depth and further hammer out the dispositive
reasoning as these three points constitute crux and gravamen of instant lis. To
add clarity, before ploughing into the crux and gravamen (3 points) of the
matter, it is necessary to set out a survey of case laws which were adverted to
in laying down that part of the ratio in Karikho Kri which serves as litmus test
for identifying the distinction between ‘substantial’ and ‘insubstantial/non-
substantial’ non-disclosures and mis-disclosures. Therefore, this Court embarks
upon this exercise of survey of case laws adverted to in Karikho Kri in the
paragraphs infra.
As already alluded to supra, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karikho
Kri v. Nuney Tayang (2024) 15 SCC 112 has made it clear that Section
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 58 of 85
2026:MNHC:12936(4) of RP Act talks about defects of substantial nature and therefore,
distinction between ‘defect’ and ‘defect of substantial nature’ should be borne
in mind besides making it clear that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its
gravity and impact would not automatically amount to a defect of substantial
nature materially affecting result of an election. To be noted, vide Section 36(4)
of RP Act, a RO is under a mandate to not to reject a nomination paper for a
defect unless it is of substantial character and this obtaining statutory position
has been emphasised in Karikho Kri. It is further to be noted, Section 36 to
the extent relevant of RP Act reads as follows:
’36. Scrutiny of nomination –
(1) ………………………………………………………………………
(2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination
papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any
nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own
motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks
necessary, [reject] any nomination on any of the following
grounds:-
[(a) [that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of
nominations the candidate] either is not qualified or is
disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of
the following provisions that may be applicable, namely:-
Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191, [*].
[Part II of this Act, and sections 4 and 14 of the
Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)]
[*]; or
(b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of
the provisions of section 33 or section 34; or
(c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer
on the nomination paper is not genuine.]
(3) …………………………………………………………………………..
(4) The returning officer shall not reject any nomination
paper on the ground of any ¹[*] defect which is not of a
substantial character.
(5) ……………………………………………………………………………..
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 59 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
(6) ………………………………………………………………………………
(7) ………………………………………………………………………………
(8) Immediately after all the nomination papers have been
scrutinized and decisions accepting or rejecting the same have
been recorded, the returning officer shall prepare a list of validly
nominated candidates, that is to say, candidates whose
nominations have been found valid, and affix it to his notice
board.’
(underlining made by this Court for ease of reference and for
supplying emphasis)
In Karikho Kri -vs- Nuney Tayang, on the afore referred
aspect of the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has adverted to six case laws and
they are as follows:
(i) L.R. Shivaramagowda and Ors. -vs- T.M.
Chandrashekar and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 666
(ii) Mangani Lal Mandal -vs- Bishnu Deo Bhandari,
(2012) 3 SCC 314
(iii) Shambhu Prasad Sharma -vs- Charandas Mahant
and Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 390
(iv) Kisan Shankar Kathore -vs- Arun Dattatray
Sawant and Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 162
(v) Lok Prahari -vs- Union of India and Ors., (2018)
4 SCC 699
(vi) S. Rukmini Madegowda -vs- State Election
Commission and Ors., (2022) 18 SCC 1
LR. Shivaramagowda and Ors. -vs- T.M. Chandrashekar
and others – (1999) 1 SCC 666
Factual matrix qua Shivaramagowda is, election of a candidate
to Karnataka Legislative Assembly was challenged inter alia on grounds of
alleged corrupt practice, false representation regarding political affiliation and
election expenses. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka accepted the plea and
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 60 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
dislodged the returned candidate. On appeal (obviously by the returned
candidate), Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether pleadings in the Election
Petition satisfy mandatory requirements adumbrated in RP Act. In this factual
backdrop, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in categorical terms that an election
petition must contain all material facts constituting complete cause of action
vide Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act and failure to comply even with regard to one
material fact is fatal to the Election Petition and the same cannot be cured by
way of amendment after prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, Hon’ble
Supreme Court also made it clear that material particulars are very different
from material facts. While material facts constitute foundation of the case,
material particulars merely amplify or explain the facts. That part of the ratio
which is of acute significance qua legal drill at hand is, Courts must strictly
enforce pleading requirements in Election Petitions because election law is a
substantial jurisdiction governed by mandatory/statutory provisions.
Mangani Lal Mandal -vs- Bishnu Deo Bhandari – (2012) 3
SCC 314
Mangani Lal Mandal, on facts, was a case of accusation that
the returned candidate suppressed material information in his election affidavit
by not disclosing details about his first wife, dependent children from that
marriage with his first wife, their assets and liabilities. Patna High Court, in the
election petition, declared the election to be void vide Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of
RP Act. On appeal (obviously by the returned candidate), Hon’ble Supreme
Court allowed the appeal, restored the election of the returned candidate and
held that mere non-disclosure or violation of affidavit requirements is not by
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 61 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
itself sufficient to set aside an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of RP Act.
In this regard, it was held that an Election Petitioner must plead with specificity
and prove that alleged non-compliance has materially affected the result of the
election and Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that in the absence of such
pleadings, an election cannot be declared void.
Shambhu Prasad Sharma -vs- Charandas Mahant and Ors.
– (2012) 11 SCC 390
On facts, Shambhu Prasad Sharma is a case where election of
a candidate from Korba Parliamentary Constituency in Chhattisgarh was
assailed on the ground that acceptance of nomination by RO was improper as
according to protagonist of the election petition, the returned candidate had not
disclosed Government dues and liabilities in the affidavit accompanying the
nomination. The jurisdictional High Court dismissed the Election Petition at the
pre-trial stage itself on the ground that there is no cause of action as there is
no pleading that the alleged improper acceptance of nomination had materially
affected the result of the election and such pleadings is statutorily required vide
Section 100 of RP Act. The unsuccessful protagonist of the election petition (to
be noted, election petition was filed by an individual who contested as
independent candidate in Korba Parliamentary Constituency) approached
Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
jurisdictional High Court but held that a plea of alleged improper acceptance of
nomination by RO cannot be made without pleading that such acceptance of
nomination has materially affected the election result under Section 100 of RP
Act. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 62 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
in rejecting the Election Petition at pre-trial stage itself by resorting to Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that it lacks cause of action. In sum and
substance, the ratio laid down in Shambhu Prasad Sharma is that an election
petition must contain all material facts constituting complete cause of action as
required under Section 83 of RP Act and in case of alleged improper acceptance
of nomination paper under Section 100(1)(d)(i), the protagonist must
specifically plead and establish that the alleged irregularity had materially
affected the election and mere allegation of defects in the nomination of
affidavit without such pleadings are insufficient to unseat/dislodge a returned
candidate.
Kisan Shankar Kathore -vs- Arun Dattatray Sawant and
Ors. – (2014) 14 SCC 162
Kisan Shankar Kathore is a case which arose from Maharashtra
and election of one Mr. Kathore from Ambernath Assembly Constituency
(reserved constituency) in 2004 elections was challenged by a voter (elector)
on the ground that the returned candidate had not disclosed outstanding dues,
assets and other statutory disclosures in Form 26. This matter travelled to
Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the ratio that when false
disclosure or non-disclosure deprive the voters of their right to make an
informed choice, the same amounts to undue influence within the meaning of
Section 123(2) of RP Act and it also constitutes corrupt practice constituting a
valid ground for setting aside an election under Section 100 of RP Act. The
baseline is, whether the alleged non-disclosure/mis-disclosure had deprived
voters/electors of their right to make an informed choice.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 63 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
Lok Prahari -vs- Union of India and Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 699
Lok Prahari is a case where a public spirited society formed by
retired civil servants with significant constitutional experience filed a writ
petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India in Hon’ble Supreme Court
seeking judicial intervention to ensure transparency and financial monitoring of
legislators to curb disproportionate accumulation of wealth. In support of this
plea, the registered society i.e., Lok Prahari cited the case of numerous
members of parliament and members of legislative assemblies where
(according to Lok Prahari) there was 4 to 5 fold increase in their assets which
according to Lok Prahari was disproportionate to their known sources of income.
It was contended that this 4 to 5 fold increase was qua their assets when the
members were first elected. Lok Prahari, protagonist of the Article 32 petition
predicated its campaign for transparency and monitoring on the platform that
ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in oft quoted Association for
Democratic Reforms (AIR 2002 SC 2112), People’s Union for Civil
Liberties [PUCL] (AIR 2003 SC 2363) and Resurgence India vs.
Election Commission of India and Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 344) i.e.,
Association for Democratic Reforms, PUCL and Resurgence principles
have not been implemented and have been given a go by. Pausing the narrative
here for a moment, this Court deems it appropriate to write that Association
for Democratic Reforms (AIR 2002 SC 2112), People’s Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL) (AIR 2003 SC 2363) and Resurgence India vs.
Election Commission of India and Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 344) have been
alluded to elsewhere supra in this order/judgment. In this factual backdrop,
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 64 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
Hon’ble Supreme Court went into the question as to whether it is permissible
to make subordinate legislation stipulating that disproportionate accumulation
of assets would disqualify the legislators within the meaning of Section 7(b) of
RP Act. The possibility of establishing a body to undertake regular audit /
monitoring of financial flow of legislators was also examined. All this was
examined on the legal plank that the right of a voter/elector to know the source
of income of candidates, his/her spouse and dependants is a fundamental right
of voter/elector and that such fundamental right is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of
Constitution of India. In such a legal drill, Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear
that suppressing the source of income and financial contracts with Government
and Government arms constitutes a fraud on the elector amounting to undue
influence and that could result in disqualification and / or voiding the election
and unseating the returned candidate.
S. Rukmini Madegowda -vs- State Election Commission
and Ors., (2022) 18 SCC 1
On facts, Rukmini Madegowda arose from local body elections
in Karnataka and it pertains to Ward No. 36 – Yerganahalli. Election of returned
candidate was assailed primarily on the ground that she had falsely declared
‘NIL’ in the column meant for declaring assets/immovable properties of her
spouse. In this regard, when the matter went to Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was
concluded that non-disclosure was deliberate and it constitutes corrupt practice
/ undue influence and as a sequitur returned candidate was
dislodged/unseated.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 65 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
Reverting to Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang, Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Karikho Kri after adverting to/a survey of afore referred 6 case laws
conclusively and categorically held that every defect / mis-disclosure or non-
disclosure in a nomination paper does not per se and by itself qualify as a
substantial defect/mis-disclosure or non-disclosure leading to improper
acceptance when the RO accepts the nomination of returned candidate on the
teeth of objections in this regard. As part of elucidation on this aspect of the
matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the language in which sub-clause
(4) of Section 36 of RP Act is couched and held that in the light of Section 36(4)
of RP Act, the legal distinction between substantial omissions and insubstantial
/ non substantial omissions which do not impact the candidature or election
outcome should always be kept in mind and that this legal distinction should be
strictly maintained. The illustrative approach in Karikho Kri is qua watches/life
style and this Court restrains itself from adverting to / setting out the same
again here as there is allusion and articulation in this regard elsewhere supra in
this order/judgment.
This Court, now tests the alleged non-disclosure of said land and
mis-disclosure of educational qualification of the returned candidate in the
instant case by respectfully applying the afore-referred Karikho Kri principle
as litmus test. In the instant case, the fact that the returned candidate owns
said land, that he has put up superstructure on the same and that he resides
there has been clearly disclosed to the electorate. The reason is, that said land
is homestead land, that the superstructure thereon is his dwelling house and
that it is owned by him have been disclosed in Sl. No. 7B(iv) of Form 26
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 66 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
captioned ‘residential buildings’. To be noted, said land/superstructure thereon
has also been given as residential address of the returned candidate. This
means that the entire electorate in said AC i.e., 20 – Langthabal Assembly
constituency, Manipur knew for sure, before voting, without any iota of doubt
that the returned candidate resides in a house owned by him and that the
details of the house including the extent of land, Dag numbers, extent of super
structure and other details have been set out under the caption ‘residential
buildings’ vide column Sl. No. 7B(iv) of Form 26. Therefore, merely not
mentioning the same details once again in column Sl. No. 7B(ii) of Form 26
definitely has not deprived the electorate/voter of the right to know that the
returned candidate resides in a residential house which is owned by him besides
knowing the details of the residential house. The sequitur is, the
electorate/voter had no difficulty in making an informed choice in this regard.
The further sequitur is, it has not affected, much less materially affected either
the electoral process or the outcome. To take an illustrative approach and
examine the matter hypothetically (without delving into the realm of surmises
and conjectures), if a given voter is inclined to vote only to a candidate who
lives in his/her own house, he/she would have voted in favour of the returned
candidate. Likewise, if any other given voter had chosen to vote for a candidate
who does not own a house, he would not have voted in favour of the returned
candidate. Applying the same logic, to put it differently, if a voter/elector
perceives a candidate who lives in his own independent house as landed gentry
and does not want his vote to go to a person who according to him belongs to
landed gentry, he would not have voted for the returned candidate. The net
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 67 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
result is, either way, there is no infraction of informed choice. On this aspect,
i.e., regarding said land and alleged non-disclosure, the election petitioner has
marked Ex. P/1(61) and P/1(62) which are certified copies of patta and to be
noted the same have been marked on the side of returned candidate also as
Ex. D/11 and D/12. It is really not necessary to examine these exhibits as there
is no disputation or contestation that the returned candidate owns said land, he
has put up super structure thereon, resides there and has disclosed this in Sl.
No. 7B (iv) of Form 26.
As regards educational qualification, there is no shred of
disputation or contestation that the returned candidate studied in said institute
i.e., Government Central Textile Institute, Kanpur {under Kanpur University},
graduated in the year 1987 and he had obtained a 4 years Bachelor degree in
a subject pertaining to Textile industry. The only point is, as regards discipline,
whether it has been set out with exactitude in Sl. No. 10 of Form 26. While the
returned candidate has obtained 4 years Bachelor degree in ‘Bachelor of
Textile Technology’ he has filled in the same as ‘Bachelor of Textile
Engineering’ in Sl. No. 10 of Form 26. However, the factum that the returned
candidate has a 4 years Bachelor degree from said institute is not disputed; that
he has obtained 4 years Bachelor’s degree in the year 1987 is also not disputed;
that the returned candidate has obtained this 4 years Bachelor degree in a
discipline pertaining to textile industry is also not in dispute; the only issue is
while the returned candidate has obtained 4 years Bachelor degree in ‘textile
technology’, he has filled in the same as ‘textile engineering’ in Form 26.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 68 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
In support of this contention, the protagonist of the election
petition i.e., the losing candidate has marked Ex. P/1(64) to P/1(70) the details
of which are as follows:
Sl. Exhibit Description
No.
1. P/1(64) Original letter dated 19.04.2022 from
Seema Shukla, PIO, U.P. Textile
Technology Institute, Kanpur (said
institute) to Sanabam Ambison Singh as
an elector who deposed as PW3
2. P/1(65) Certified copy of webpage about Uttar
Pradesh Textile Technology Institute,
Kanpur (said institute)
3. P/1(66) Copy of application dated 25.03.2022 to
the Public Information Officer (PIO),
Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology
Institute, Kanpur (said institute) by
Sanabam Ambison Singh requesting for
list of passed out students of 1987 batch
4. P/1(67) Original copy of letter dated 01.04.2022
from Director, U.P. Textile Technology
Institute, Kanpur (said institute) to
Sanabam Ambison Singh
5. P/1(68) Original copy of letter dated 04.04.2022
issued by Seema Shukla, PIO, U.P.
Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur
(said institute) to Sanabam Ambison
Singh
6. P/1(69) List of outgoing students of the final year
(1986 - 87) B. Text
7. P/1(70) Original copy of the Alumni Directory,
2014 of Old Boys Association of said
institute
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 69 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
As opposed to the above, on the side of the returned candidate
exhibits D/13 to D/16 (pertaining to educational qualification) were marked and
details of the same are as follows:
Sl. Exhibit Description
No.
1. D/13 RTI application dated 31.08.2022 by
David Boon L., Advocate to the Director,
U.P. Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur
(said institute)
2. D/14 RTI reply dated 16.09.2022
3. D/15 Certified copy of statement of marks –
final B. Text. (Textile Technology) Main
Examination, 1987
4. D/16 Letter dated 21.08.1982 from the Under
Secretary (Edn.), Government of
Manipur to the Principal, Government
Central Textile Institute, Kanpur
(nominating returned candidate on
behalf of Government of Manipur)
The PIO of said institute has also been examined as DW – 11. It
is really not necessary to examine afore-referred exhibits and/or go into
deposition of DW-11 as there is no contestation or disputation regarding the
fact that there are two separate courses namely, one in textile technology and
another in textile engineering in said institute. There is also no dispute that in
the year 1987 said institute did not offer 4 years Bachelor degree in textile
engineering. As regards possible impact /undue influence qua election process
and as regards the same materially affecting the election/election result, this
Court is of the considered view that it would not have impacted the informed
choice of the voter. The reason is, any voter who went to the polling booth on
28.02.2022 knew for sure that the returned candidate has obtained a 4 years
Bachelor degree from said institute and that the 4 years degree pertains to
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 70 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
textile industry. To put it in very colloquial terms, every voter knew for sure that
the returned candidate has a 4 year Bachelor’s degree in a discipline pertaining
to Textile industry from said institute. Therefore, if a voter/elector chooses to
cast his vote in favour of a candidate with good literacy level i.e., literacy level
of 4 year Bachelor’s degree, he or she would have voted for the returned
candidate. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned Senior Counsel
that there is a world of difference between a technician and an engineer fades
into insignificance.
Axiomatically, if another voter / elector is of the view that a highly
qualified 4 year Bachelor degree holder may not be able to effectively represent
the masses, he or she would not have voted in favour of the returned candidate.
The corollary is, either way, this minor difference in disclosing the educational
qualification of the returned candidate could not have by any stretch of
imagination materially affected the outcome of the election. Furthermore, there
is no shred of evidence to demonstrate that this has materially affected the
election/election result.
As regards the aforesaid 3(three) points, a good and sound factual
matrix parallel can be drawn from the facts of Karikho Kri regarding first point
i.e., non-disclosure qua said land. In Karikho Kri, one of the issues was failure
on the part of returned candidate to disclose municipality/property taxes dues
payable by him and his wife. The returned candidate had clearly disclosed the
dues in serial No. 8 (vi) in Part – A of Form – 26 but has failed to repeat/write
the same in serial No. 9 in Part – B of Form – 26. In the Supreme Court, learned
senior counsel appearing for the losing candidate made it clear that he is not
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 71 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
pressing the ground pertaining to nondisclosure of municipality/property taxes
dues payable by returned candidate and his wife as there is a disclosure in one
part of Form – 26. Hon’ble Supreme Court, after clearly noticing that learned
senior counsel for losing candidate is not pressing this point, made it clear that
failure on the part of returned candidate to disclose municipality/property taxes
dues payable by him and his wife cannot be held to be a non-disclosure at all
inasmuch as he had disclosed the particulars of such dues in one part of the
affidavit (Form – 26) but did not do so in another part (Form – 26) of the same
affidavit. This is exactly the case in the captioned matter, as, while returned
candidate has clearly disclosed details of said land and superstructure thereon,
his ownership and his dwelling therein vide serial No. 7B (iv) of Form – 26
captioned ‘residential building’ he has not set out the same again in serial No.
7B (ii) of the same Form – 26 captioned ‘non-agricultural land’. Karikho Kri,
on facts, applies squarely in all force to the facts of instant case. This Court
respectfully follows Karikho Kri principle in this regard and has no hesitation
in writing that as regards said land, it is not a case of non-disclosure at all.
As regards this first point regarding non-disclosure qua said land,
relevant paragraphs in Karikho Kri are paragraph Nos. 11 & 53 and the same
read as follows:
’11. As regards Issue 5, pertaining to the liability of Karikho Kri and
his wife in respect of their dues of municipal and property taxes, the
High Court found that Karikho Kri had disclosed the taxes due and
payable by him and his wife in one part of the affidavit in Form 26
submitted by him, but failed to do so in another part thereof. He
disclosed the dues in Part A. Clauses 8(vi) and (viii), but failed to disclose
it in Clause 9 in Part B. Though the High Court held against Karikho Kri
even on this count, Mr Arunabh Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for Nuney Tayang, fairly stated that he would not be pressingEL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 72 of 85
2026:MNHC:129this ground as there was disclosure of the dues at least in one part of
the affidavit in Form 26.’
’53. As regards the failure on the part of Karikho Kri to disclose the
dues of municipal/property taxes payable by him and his wife, the same
cannot be held to be a non-disclosure at all, inasmuch as he did disclose
the particulars of such dues in one part of his affidavit but did not do so
in another part. In any event, as Mr Arunabh Chowdhury, learned Senior
Counsel, fairly stated that he would not be pressing this ground, we
need not labour further upon this point.’The second point pertains to alleged mis-disclosure of educational
qualification. In this regard, on facts, there is no disputation or contestation
that the returned candidate studied in said institute, graduated in the year 1987
and obtained a 4 years bachelor degree in a discipline pertaining to textile
industry. The only issue is, while the returned candidate has obtained 4 years
bachelor degree in textile technology he has written in Form 26 (in Sl. No. 10)
that he has obtained 4 years bachelor degree in textile engineering. As there is
elaboration and allusion in this regard elsewhere supra in this order, this Court
refrains from delving into the same again to avoid burdening this order with
repetition and ensuring that this order does not become verbose. Be that as it
may, a careful examination of the obtaining legal position, as can be culled out
from the case laws set out in discussions thus far (supra), this Court has no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that merely describing textile technology
as textile engineering is not substantial mis-disclosure and it is clearly non-
substantial/insubstantial. Furthermore, besides being non-
substantial/insubstantial, there is no material to demonstrate that it has in any
manner materially affected the election or the outcome. Therefore, this Court
has no hesitation in returning a finding that there is substantial compliance with
regard to disclosure of requisite information as regards educational
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 73 of 85
2026:MNHC:129qualification. The relevant paragraphs in Karikho Kri in this regard are
paragraph Nos. 44 & 47 and the same read as follows:
’44. The decision of this Court in Kisan Shankar Kathore, also
demonstrates this principle, as this Court undertook examination of
several individual defects in the nomination of the returned candidate
and found that some of them were actually insubstantial in character.
This Court noted that two facets required consideration – whether
there is substantial compliance in disclosing requisite information in
the affidavits filed along with the nomination and whether non-
disclosure of information on identified aspects materially affected the
result of the election. This Court observed. on facts, that non-
disclosure of the electricity dues in that case was not a serious lapse,
despite the fact that there were dues outstanding, as there was a bona
fide dispute about the same. Similar was the observation in relation to
non-disclosure of municipal dues, where there was a genuine dispute
as to re-valuation and re-assessment for the purpose of tax
assessment. Earlier, in Shambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas
Mahant, this Court observed that the form of the nomination paper is
not considered sacrosanct and what is to be seen is whether there is
substantial compliance with the requirement as to form and every
departure from the prescribed format cannot, therefore, be made a
ground for the rejection of the nomination paper.’’47. Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the
voter’s “right to know” is absolute and a candidate contesting the
election must be forthright about all his particulars, we are not inclined
to accept the blanket proposition that a candidate is required to lay his
life out threadbare for examination by the electorate. His “right to
privacy” would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern
to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office. In
that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a
candidate would not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a
substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every
item of movable property that he or his dependent family members
own, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and furniture, etc.
unless the same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in
itself or reflect upon his candidature, in terms of his lifestyle, and
require to be disclosed. Every case would have to turn on its own
peculiarities and there can be no hard-and-fast or straitjacketed rule
as to when the non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a
candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character. For
example, a candidate and his family who own several high-priced
watches, which would aggregate to a huge figure in terms of monetary
value, would obviously have to disclose the same as they constitute an
asset of high value and also reflect upon his lavish lifestyle.
Suppression of the same would constitute “undue influence” upon the
voter as that relevant information about the candidate is being kept
away from the voter. However, if a candidate and his family membersEL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 74 of 85
2026:MNHC:129each own a simple watch, which is not highly priced, suppression of
the value of such watches may not amount to a defect at all. Each case
would, therefore, have to be judged on its own facts.’
(Underlining made by this Court for ease of reference)This Court/election tribunal is acutely conscious that the afore-
referred paragraphs 44 & 47 of Karikho Kri pertain to movable assets in the
form of a omni passenger van and 2 two wheelers which stood in the name of
wife and son of returned candidate but were either sold or gifted but records
continued to remain in the name of the returned candidate. Nonetheless, the
principle (in the light of factual matrix of instant case) is, in a legal drill in an
election petition under R.P. Act, more particularly legal drill qua Section 100 (1)
(d) (i) and (iv) thereat, what requires to be examined is whether there is
substantial compliance qua disclosure. It is in this regard that this Court has
respectfully followed the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia in Karikho
Kri as set out in paragraph Nos. 44 & 47 and has underlined the most relevant
portions.
As regards said land as well as educational qualification,
objections having been raised and RO not rejecting the nomination paper of the
returned candidate is the third point. In Karikho Kri, it was made clear that
nomination paper is not considered sacrosanct and what is to be seen is
whether there is substantial compliance with the requirement as to form and
every departure from the prescribed format cannot be made a ground for
rejection of the nomination paper. This principle coupled with sub-section (4)
of Section 36 of RP Act which casts a statutory duty on every RO to not to reject
any nomination paper on the ground of defect which is not of a substantial
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 75 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
character makes it clear that in the instant case RO refusing to reject nomination
of the returned candidate cannot be found fault with.
Be that as it may, in Karikho Kri itself, it was also laid down as
a principle that every case would have to turn on its own peculiarities and there
can be no hard and fast or strait jacketed rule as to when non-disclosure of a
particular asset by a candidate would amount to a defect of substantial
character. It is in this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court resorted to illustrative
approach regarding high priced watches and simple watches of a candidate and
his family and lifestyle about which there is allusion and elaboration elsewhere
supra in this order. In this regard, even as a general principle, Constitution
Bench has declared the law in Padma Sundara Rao (about which also there
is allusion elsewhere supra in this order) that reliance on case laws will heavily
depend on facts and even one minor variation in fact can make a world of
difference. In this view of the matter, this Court, by respectfully following the
principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, has no hesitation in coming to
the conclusion that as regards the said land, it is not a case of non-disclosure
at all and as regards educational qualification, a minor variation in describing
‘textile technology’ as ‘textile engineering’ is clearly and undoubtedly
insubstantial/non-substantial which neither warrants rejection of nomination by
RO under Section 36 of RP Act (inter alia owing to sub-Section (4) of Section
36 of RP Act) nor materially affects the election by causing infraction of
fundamental rights of the voters/electors to know about their candidate which
has been held to be a facet of fundamental right vide Article 19(1)(a). Sum
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 76 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
Sequitur is, all 3(three) points stand answered in favour of the returned
candidate and not in favour of the election petitioner.
(F) REVERTING TO TRAJECTORY OF CAPTIONED ELECTION
PETITION:
[36] As already alluded to supra, the captioned election petition was
filed in this Court on 20.04.2022 and it was presented on 28.04.2022 and the
instant order is being delivered in July 2026. The trajectory which the captioned
election petition took has been captured and set out under the caption ‘The
Trajectory of Captioned Election Petition‘ supra. This narration under the
caption ‘Reverting to Trajectory of Captioned Election Petition’ is an
addendum which reproduces proceedings made in the last 14 listings which in
turn will serve the purpose of broadly capturing the manner in which time was
consumed in this Bench in hearing out the captioned election petition in spite
of best efforts of all concerned i.e., Court and learned counsel on both sides in
spite of difficulties and impediments:
‘05.05.2026
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and Mr. A.
Mohendro, learned counsel along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel
on record for returned candidate are before this Court.
Though this Court is inclined to sit beyond the Court hours and
hear the matter, learned counsel on both sides considering the exigency
of time request for listing on Monday.
Afore-referred joint/common request for adjournment is
acceded to.
List under the same cause-list caption i.e., ‘HEARING PART
HEARD’ on 11.05.2026.
List on 11.05.2026.’
‘11.05.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of the earlier
proceedings made in the previous listing.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 77 of 85
2026:MNHC:129Today Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior advocate instructed by
Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and
Mr. A. Mohendro along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel on
record for returned candidate are before this Court (physical Court).
After continuing the argument for some time, Mr. H. S. Paonam,
learned senior counsel expressed some personal difficulties (eye ailment) and
submitted that he will continue his submissions tomorrow.
In the light of the narrative thus far, list the captioned matters under
the same cause list caption i.e., ‘HEARING PART HEARD’ tomorrow (i.e.,
12.05.2026).
List on 12.05.2026.’
‘12.05.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of the earlier
proceedings made in the previous listing yesterday which reads as
follows:
‘11.05.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of the earlier
proceedings made in the previous listing.
Today Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior advocate instructed by
Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and
Mr. A. Mohendro along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel on record
for returned candidate are before this Court (physical Court).
After continuing the argument for some time, Mr. H. S.
Paonam, learned senior counsel expressed some personal difficulties
(eye ailment) and submitted that he will continue his submissions
tomorrow.
In the light of the narrative thus far, list the captioned matters
under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘HEARING PART HEARD’
tomorrow (i.e., 12.05.2026).
List on 12.05.2026.’
Today Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election petitioner is before this
Court and learned senior counsel is ready to advance arguments but there
is no representation for returned candidate though the names of counsel for
returned candidate (Mr. A. Mohendro, Ms. Ayangleima and Mr. Kh. Lupenjit)
are duly shown in the cause-list.
This Court was inclined to list the matter tomorrow but Mr. H.S.
Paonam, learned senior counsel requested for listing day after tomorrow
citing difficulty for him. This request is acceded to.
List under the same cause-list caption i.e., HEARING PART HEARD day
after tomorrow.
List on 14.05.2026.’
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 78 of 85
2026:MNHC:129‘14.05.2026
Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel on record for returned candidate are before
this Court (physical Court).
Though this Court is inclined to hear the captioned matters, Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and Mr. A.
Mohendro, learned counsel on record for returned candidate made a
common/joint request to have the captioned matter listed tomorrow citing
counsel difficulty today. This request is acceded to.
List tomorrow under the same cause-list caption i.e., HEARING PART
HEARD.
List on 15.05.2026.’
‘15.05.2026
Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and Mr. A.
Mohendro, along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel on record for returned
candidate are before this Court (physical Court).
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel submits that he is feeling under
the weather and made a request to have the matters listed on Monday i.e.,
18.05.2026. Considering the nature of the request, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned
counsel for returned candidate did not oppose.
This Court, also taking into account the fact that learned senior advocate
himself is present in Court but expresses difficulty in arguing the matters owing
to feeling under the weather, deems it appropriate to re-notify the matters to
Monday i.e., 18.05.2026.
List under the same cause-list caption i.e., HEARING PART HEARD on
Monday.
List on 18.05.2026.’
‘18.05.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in previous listing on 15.05.2026 which reads as
follows:
‘15.05.2026
Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior advocate instructed by
Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election
petitioner and Mr. A. Mohendro, along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit,
learned counsel on record for returned candidate are before this
Court (physical Court).
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel submits that he
is feeling under the weather and made a request to have the
matters listed on Monday i.e., 18.05.2026. Considering the
nature of the request, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for
returned candidate did not oppose.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 79 of 85
2026:MNHC:129This Court, also taking into account the fact that learned
senior advocate himself is present in Court but expresses
difficulty in arguing the matters owing to feeling under the
weather, deems it appropriate to re-notify the matters to Monday
i.e., 18.05.2026.
List under the same cause-list caption i.e., HEARING PART
HEARD on Monday.
List on 18.05.2026.’
2. Today Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr.
BR. Sharma, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and Mr. A.
Mohendro, along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel on record for
returned candidate are before this Court.
3. After making submissions for some time (about one hour) Mr. H.S.
Paonam, learned senior counsel for election petitioner requested for
listing on another date for continuation citing difficulty at his end though
the Court was inclined and willing to sit through and hear out the matter.
4. In the light of difficulty expressed by learned senior counsel in
continuing and concluding today, let this matter stand over to day after
tomorrow i.e., 20.05.2026.
6. List under the same cause-list caption i.e., HEARING PART HEARD
on 20.05.2026.’
‘20.05.2026
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. B.R.
Sharma, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and Mr. A.
Mohendro, learned counsel on record for returned candidate are
before this Court.
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel on record for returned
candidate though before this Court (physical Court) and though this
Court is inclined to take up and hear the matter, requests for a short
accommodation by 1(one) day citing difficulty at his end.
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel and instructing counsel
Mr. B.R. Sharma do not oppose afore-referred request as
accommodation is sought citing counsel difficulty. Let this matter stand
over to tomorrow.
List under the same cause-list caption i.e., ‘HEARING PART
HEARD’ tomorrow.
List on 21.05.2026.’
‘21.05.2026
1. Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of
earlier proceedings made in previous listing yesterday (20.05.2026).
2. In the hearing today, Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior
advocate instructed by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 80 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
election petitioner and Mr. A. Mohendro along with Ms. Y. Monika,
learned counsel on record for returned candidate are before this Court.
3. After making submissions for some time, learned senior
counsel for election petitioner submitted that it would be desirable to
continue and conclude by listing the matter next week though this Court
was inclined to sit through and hear out the learned senior counsel for
election petitioner. To be noted, learned senior counsel expresses voice
strain as difficulty at his end in continuing.
4. In the light of the narrative thus far, list under the same
cause-list caption i.e., HEARING PART HEARD.
5. List on 28.05.2025.’
‘02.06.2026
Matter mentioned when the Single sitting commenced
Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel on record for election
petitioner and Mr. David Boon, learned counsel on record for returned
candidate are before this Court.
Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel for election petitioner,
requests for an adjournment citing personal inconvenience for senior
counsel Mr. H.S. Paonam who is leading him. This request is acceded
to.
List tomorrow under the same cause-list caption i.e., ‘HEARING
PART HEARD’.
List on 03.06.2026.’
‘03.06.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings
made in previous listing.
In the hearing today, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior advocate
instructed by Mr. M. Chinglemba, learned counsel on record for election
petitioner continued and concluded his submissions. Though it was
beyond Court hours, this Court was inclined to continue the hearing but
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel on record for returned candidate
requested for listing next week. To be noted, this Court is inclined to
take up the matter tomorrow as that would be day to day hearing but
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for returned candidate expressed
difficulty/inconvenience in arguing tomorrow and requested for listing
next week.
Both sides agreed that the matter can continue on 11.06.2026.
List under the same cause-list caption i.e., HEARING PART
HEARD.
List on 11.06.2026.’
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 81 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
‘11.06.2026
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listings.
[2] In the hearing today, Mr. BR Sharma, along with Ms. Langei
Laishram, learned counsel on record for election petitioner and Mr. A.
Mohendro, along with Mr. David Boon and Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned
counsel on record for returned candiate are before this Court (physical
Court).
[3] Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel on record for returned
candidate commenced his submissions and after arguing for some time
requested for listing the captioned matter on 17.06.2026.
[4] To be noted, this Court was ready to hear out the rest of the
matter and alternatively Court was also ready to list the matter
tomorrow but Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for returned candidate
expressed his inability to continue today or have the matter listed
tomorrow citing physical discomfort for him. In this scenario, this Court
has no option other than writing that the captioned matter will now
stand over to 17.06.2026.
[5] List under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘HEARING PART
HEARD’ on 17.06.2026.’
‘17.06.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listings.
Today, in the hearing, Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel along
with Ms. Langei Laishram, learned counsel on record for election
petitioner and Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel along with Mr. Kh.
Lupenjit, learned counsel on record for returned candidate are before
this Court (physical Court).
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for returned candidate
continued his submissions. Though this Court was inclined and ready
to hear out the matter today, learned counsel for returned candidate
expressed difficulty in continuing the matter today. Though this Court
was inclined to list this matter tomorrow, learned counsel made a
request for listing day after tomorrow citing personal difficulty at his
end. As the request is predicated on counsel difficulty, this Court has
no option other writing that the captioned matter will now stand over
to 19.06.2026.
List under the same cause-list caption i.e., ‘HEARING PART
HEARD’ on 19.06.2026.’
‘19.06.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of proceedings
made in earlier listings.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 82 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
In the hearing today, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior
advocate instructed by Mr. BR. Sharma, learned counsel on record for
election petitioner, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel along with Mr.
Kh. Lupenjit, and Mr. David Boon, learned counsel on record for
returned candidate were before this Court.
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for returned candidate
continued and concluded his submissions. Thereafter, Mr. H.S.
Paonam, learned senior counsel for election petitioner made reply
submissions. Curtains qua oral submissions.
Both sides submitted that they will submit a short synopsis of
arguments in advance (short synopsis not exceeding 5 pages) and
sought time to do the same.
Both sides requested for listing on 23.06.2026 and submitted
that afore-referred synopsis of submissions will be filed on Tuesday
i.e., 23.06.2026.
List on 23.06.2026.’
‘23.06.2026
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of
earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 19.06.2026 which
reads as follows:
‘19.06.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of
proceedings made in earlier listings.
In the hearing today, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior
advocate instructed by Mr. BR. Sharma, learned counsel on record for
election petitioner, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel along with Mr.
Kh. Lupenjit, and Mr. David Boon, learned counsel on record for
returned candidate were before this Court.
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for returned candidate
continued and concluded his submissions. Thereafter, Mr. H.S.
Paonam, learned senior counsel for election petitioner made reply
submissions. Curtains qua oral submissions.
Both sides submitted that they will submit a short synopsis of
arguments in advanced (short synopsis not exceeding 5 pages) and
sought time to do the same.
Both sides requested for listing on 23.06.2026 and submitted
that afore-referred synopsis of submissions will be filed on Tuesday i.e.,
23.06.2026.
List on 23.06.2026.’
[2] In the hearing today Mr. B.R. Sharma along with Mr. S.
Gunabanta (both learned counsel on record) for the election
petitioner and Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel on record for the
returned candidate are before this Court.
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 83 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
[3] Adverting to earlier proceedings, more particularly, the
last paragraph in the first page, afore-referred learned counsel on
both sides placed before this Court short synopsis of arguments
advanced both dated 23.06.2026 and both running to 5(five) pages.
[4] To be noted, a minor typographical error has crept in qua
the last paragraph of the first page of the earlier proceedings dated
19.06.2026. The word ‘advanced’ has been erroneously typed as
‘advance’, with the consent of afore-referred learned counsel on both
sides, this is now corrected and this order when uploaded will serve
as an errata/corrigendum.
[5] Reverting to the captioned main matter, hearing
concluded. Captioned the matter will now stand over for
consideration and verdict.
[6] Orders/Judgment reserved.' [37] This Court, having set out its discussion and dispositive reasoning
as regards issue Nos. 1 & 2, has no hesitation in writing that it follows as a
sequitur that there was no infirmity in RO accepting the nomination form of
returned candidate as there was neither substantial nondisclosure (no
nondisclosure at all) nor substantial mis-disclosure of educational qualification,
much less non-disclosure/mis-disclosure materially affecting the election.
[38] In the light of the discussion and dispositive reasoning set out
thus far, issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3 stand answered in favour of returned candidate
and issue Nos. 4 & 5 obviously stand answered to the effect that election
petitioner is not entitled to the relief of dislodging/unseating the returned
candidate.
[39] It is axiomatic that the recrimination petition can be closed as
election petitioner has chosen to argue the main election petition without
insisting on letting in evidence as the question of recrimination petition and
letting in evidence in the same would arise only if the returned candidate is
dislodged/unseated. In any event, learned counsel for returned candidate has
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 84 of 85
2026:MNHC:129
agreed to such a course subject only to preservation of rights if the need arises.
Therefore, EL. RECR. PET No. 5 of 2022 is given a closure.
G. Result/conclusion: [40] Ergo, the sum sequitur of narration, discussion and dispositive
reasoning set out supra is, captioned election petition fails and the same is
dismissed. As a corollary, in the light of the stated position of learned counsel
for returned candidate on the basis of which captioned election petition was
heard out, captioned election recrimination petition is disposed of as closed, the
same having become otiose. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Bipin/Indrajeet
LAIRENMAYUM Digitally signed by
LAIRENMAYUM INDRAJEET
INDRAJEET SINGH
Date: 2026.07.14 14:45:26
SINGH +05’30’
EL. PET. No. 7 of 2022 with
EL. RECR. PET. No. 5 of 2022 Page 85 of 85
