Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Lok Prahari vs Dr. Rajiv Mani on 16 April, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO…..OF 2026
(Diary No. 19856/2024)
LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA ..Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DR. RAJIV MANI ..Alleged Contemnor/
Respondent
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.784 OF 2015
LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA Petitioner(s)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.04.21
17:48:35 IST
Reason: 1
1. This Contempt Petition is at the instance of the original
petitioner of Writ Petition (C) No.784/2015 complaining about
non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court while
disposing of the main matter, i.e., Writ Petition (C) No.784 of
2015.
2. We take notice of the fact that the Writ Petition in
public interest referred to above was preferred seeking
following reliefs:-
“1. issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of
mandamus –
(1) to respondents no. 1 and 2 to make necessary changes
in the Form 26 prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 keeping in view the suggestion in
para 38 of the WP;
(2) to respondent no. 1 to consider suitable amendment in
the Representation of the People Act 1951 to provide for
rejection of nomination papers of the candidates and
disqualification of MPs/MLAs/MLCs deliberately furnishing
wrong information about their assets in the affidavit in
Form 26 at the time of filing of the nomination;
(3) to respondents no. 3 to 5 to-
(i) conduct inquiry/investigation into
disproportionate increase in the assets of
MPs/MLAs/MLCs included in list in Annexure P6 to the
WP,
(ii) have a permanent mechanism to take similar
action in respect of MPs/MLAs/MLCs whose assets
increase by more than 100% by the next election,
(iii) fast track corruption cases against
MPs/MLAs/MLCs to ensure their disposal within one
year.
2. declare that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income
2
of self, spouse and dependents by a candidate would amount to
undue influence and thereby, corruption and as such election
of such a candidate can be declared null and void under
Section 100(l){b) of the RP Act of 1951 in terms of the
judgment reported in AIR 2015 SC 1921.
3. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
to the respondents to consider amending Section 9-A of the Act
to include contracts with appropriate Government and any
public company by the Hindu undivided family/trust/partnership
firm(s)/private company (companies) in which the candidate and
his spouse and dependents have a share or interest.
4. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
to the respondents that pending amendment in Section 9-A of
the Act, information about the contracts with appropriate
Government and any public company by the candidate, his/her
spouse and dependents directly or by Hindu undivided
family/trust/partnership firm (s)/private company (companies)
in which the candidate and his spouse and dependents have a
share or interest shall also be provided in the affidavit in
Form 26 prescribed under the Rules.
5. By way of IA. 8/2016 the Petitioner prayed that an
amendment be made to the Writ Petition for the addition of the
following prayers: As Form 26 prescribed under the Rules
provides information only about possible disqualification on
the basis of conviction in criminal cases, mentioned in
Section 8 of the RP Act of 1951, it does not contain
information on the provisions in Section 8-A, 9, 9A, 10, and
10-A regarding disqualification in Chapter III of the said Act
which may render a candidate ineligible to contest. The
Petitioner therefore, prays that Form 26 may be further
amended to provide the following information:
i. Whether the candidate was found guilty of
a corrupt practice u/S 99 of the RP Act
of 1951?
ii. If yes, the decision of the President
under Section 8-A(3) of the Act on the
question of his disqualification, along
with the date of the decision.
iii. Whether the candidate was dismissed for
corruption or for disloyalty while
holding an office under the Government of
India or the Government of any State?
iv. If, yes the decision of such dismissal as3
per the certificate issued by the EC
under Section 9 of the Act.
v. Whether the candidate is a managing
agent, manager or Secretary of any
company or Corporation (other than co-
operative society) in the capital of
which the appropriate government has not
less than twenty-five percent share?
vi. Whether the candidate has lodged an
account of election expenses in respect
of the last election contested by him
within the time and in the manner
required by or under the RP Act of 1951?”
3. The petition was adjudicated by a two Judge Bench of this
Court and ultimately the same came to be disposed of with the
following observations and directions:-
“…61. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the
prayer 1(3)(ii) of the 1st respondent.
62. In prayer 1(3)(i), the petitioner prays that an
inquiry/investigation be conducted into the
“disproportionate increase in the assets” of the
LEGISLATORS named in Annexure P-6 to the writ
petition. We are of the opinion that an
inquiry/investigation such as the one sought for by
the petitioner with reference to the named
LEGISLATORS would amount to selective scrutiny of
the matter in the absence of any permanent mechanism
regularly monitoring the growth of the assets of all
the LEGISLATORS and/or their ASSOCIATES as a class.
Such a selective investigation could lead to
political witch-hunting. We, therefore, decline this
relief, at this stage.
63. We shall now deal with prayer no. 2 which seeks
a declaration that non-disclosure of assets and
sources of income would amount to ‘undue influence’
– a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the RP
Act of 1951. In this behalf, heavy reliance is
placed by the petitioner on a judgment of this Court
in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Others, (2015) 3
SCC 467. It was a case arising under the Tamil Nadu
4
Panchayats Act, 1994. A notification was issued by
the State Election Commission stipulating that every
candidate at an election to any Panchayat is
required to disclose information inter alia whether
the candidate was accused in any pending criminal
case of any offence punishable with imprisonment for
two years or more and in which charges have been
framed or cognizance has been taken by a court of
law. In an election petition, it was alleged that
there were certain criminal cases pending falling in
the abovementioned categories, but the said
information was not disclosed by the returned
candidate at the time of filing his nomination. One
of the questions before this Court was whether such
non-disclosure amounted to ‘undue influence’ – a
corrupt practice under the Panchayats Act. It may be
mentioned that the Panchayats Act simply adopted the
definition of a corrupt practice as contained in
Section 123 of the RP Act of 1951.
On an elaborate consideration of various aspects of
the matter, this Court held as follows:
91. … While filing the nomination form, if the
requisite information, as has been highlighted by
us, relating to criminal antecedents, is not given,
indubitably, there is an attempt to suppress, effort
to misguide and keep the people in dark. This
attempt undeniably and undisputedly is undue
influence and, therefore, amounts to corrupt
practice. …”
64. For the very same logic as adopted by this Court
in Krishnamoorthy, we are also of the opinion that
the non-disclosure of assets and sources of income of
the CANDIDATES and their ASSOCIATES would constitute
corrupt practice falling under heading “undue
influence’ as defined under Section 123(2) of the RP
Act of 1951. We, therefore, allow prayer No.2.
65. Coming to Prayer No. 4, the petitioner is only
seeking information regarding the contracts, if any
with the appropriate government either by the
candidate or his/her spouse and dependants.
“..information about the contracts with
appropriate Government and any public5
company by the candidate, his/her spouse and
dependents directly or by Hindu undivided
family/trust/partnership firm(s)/private
company (companies) in which the candidate
and his spouse and dependents have a share
or interest shall also be provided in the
affidavit in Form 26 prescribed under the
Rules.”
66. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the
information such as the one required under the
above-mentioned prayer is certainly relevant
information in the context of disqualification on
the ground of undue accretion of assets, therefore,
we see no objection for granting the relief as
prayed for.
67. We are left with the reliefs sought by way of
prayer No. 5 in I.A. No. 8 of 2016. The petitioner
seeks Form 26 be amended to provide certain further
information. An analysis of the information sought
(as can be seen from the prayer) indicates that all
the information is in the context of statutorily
prescribed disqualifications under the RP Act of
1951. In our opinion, such information would
certainly be relevant and necessary for a voter to
make an appropriate choice at the time of the
election whether to vote or not in favour of a
particular candidate. Therefore, all the six prayers
made in I.A. No. 8 are allowed.”
4. Mr. S.N. Shukla, the General Secretary of Lok Prahari
original petitioner would submit that the Union is in contempt.
5. Mr. Nataraj, the learned ASG submitted that appropriate
reply has been filed and placed on record explaining that
6
there is no contempt.
6. He took us through relevant contents of the reply, more
particularly, that part of the reply explaining the
developments that have taken place after the directions came to
be issued by this Court and in what manner they are now being
implemented. The same reads thus:-
“… 13. That it is most humbly submitted that the
department vide D.O. letter bearing D.O. No.
11O19/4/2018-Leg-II Vol.-II) dated 06 February,2026,
requested Lok Sabha Secretariat for a re-look into
the matter and share its latest views/comments to
this Department at the earliest so that a definite
stand could be taken in captioned matter and the
orders of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.
784 of 2015 in the matter of Lok Prahari vs Union of
India could be complied with appropriately. Now the
Department is in receipt of the reply of the Lok
Sabha Secretariat dated 11th February 2026, in
response to this Department’s letter dated 06th
February 2026.
14. That it is most humbly submitted that in reply
to the abovementioned letter, the Lok Sabha
Secretariat has reiterated their past stand as to
legal and practical challenges of dealing with the
issues by way of a legislation, specifically
regarding the proposed creation of a committee to
monitor the assets of Members of Parliament. The Lok
Sabha Secretariat also stated that setting up of a
dedicated cell within the Secretariat of Houses, as
suggested by the then Ld. Attorney General to
investigate disproportionate asset growth in MPs is
not feasible and legally untenable in view of the
parliamentary practices and procedures and the
Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013. Also, it has been
submitted that it is against established
parliamentary practice to summon Union Ministers
(who are also MPs) to appear before parliamentary7
panels or committees. Having the Secretariats of the
Houses investigate against its own members/Ministers
with regard to increase in their assets and any such
step would create a conflict with the operations of
the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Lokpal is a
dedicated institution created to investigate
corruption and monitor the assets of public
servants, including the Prime Minister, Ministers,
and MPs. The Secretariat also stated the Lokpal’s
role was not fully operational until April 2019 and
hence, the relevance of creating a new committee for
such purpose may encroach on the Lokpal’s
jurisdiction also.
15. That the Lok Sabha Secretariat is of the view
that that neither a new Committee nor a “dedicated
cell” within the House Secretariats (as suggested by
the Attorney General) is feasible due to practical
and procedural constraints. It is submitted that the
Secretariat opined that this may be the task of the
specialized agencies like the CBDT etc. and that per
established practice, Union Ministers are not
typically summoned to appear before Parliamentary
panels and that using the Secretariat for
investigations would break this long-standing
practice.
16. That, it is further submitted that, there were
no directions to the Department to make a law on the
subject matter for devising a permanent mechanism to
take action in respect of MPs, MLAs, MLCs whose
assets increased by more than 100% by the next
election. Despite that, this Department made efforts
and attempted to take all the stakeholders on board,
considering adherence to the pre-legislative
consultative policy of the Government which mandates
consultation with all the stakeholders including the
Ministries/Departments of Government of India before
any legislative proposal is sent to the Cabinet for
consideration and approval. Furthermore, the Lok
Sabha Secretariat, which is the most important
stakeholder in this subject matter. has stated that
no legislative intervention is required to deal with
a matter which falls in the domain of Parliamentary
practice and procedure. It is further submitted that
the subject matter is also outside the scope of
administration of this Department. Hence, it is8
evident that there has been no willful neglect or
disobedience at any stage on the part of this
Department in complying with the direction of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, relying on recent
court orders in PIL No. 29990 of 2027 the matter of
Lok Prahari vs. ECI and Anr before the Allahabad
High Court, Lucknow Bench, it is learned that a
joint framework already exists between the Election
Commission and the Central Board of Direct Taxes to
verify asset disclosures and report discrepancies
and place the same in public domain. Therefore, no
legislative intervention is required and that the
matter should stay within the domain of specialized
agencies.”
7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that there is
no contempt, as alleged.
8. With the aforesaid, this Contempt Petition stands disposed
of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………….J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
……………….J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi
16th April, 2026.
9
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.7 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.19856/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
16-02-2018 in W.P.(C) No. No. 784/2015 passed by the Supreme
Court of India]
LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DR. RAJIV MANI Respondent(s)
Date : 16-04-2026 This petition was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANFor Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP)
Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G.
Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
Mr.Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.
Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Mrigank Pathak, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR
10
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Contempt Petition is disposed of in terms of the
signed order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
11
[ad_1]
Source link
