Judgment : 1. This petition by an unsuccessful candidate at election to Baramati Parliamentary Constituency questions the election of the respondent as Member of the Lok Sabha from the said Constituency in the elections held in the month of May, 2009. 2. The petitioner was an independent candidate who had filed her nomination for election to Baramati Parliamentary Constituency. The respondent was representing Nationalist Congress Party. After the election, the respondent was declared as elected, having secured Rs.4,87,827 votes. Her nearest rival Mrs. Kanta Jaysingh Nalawade of Bhartiya Janta Party had polled 1,50,996 votes. The petitioner had polled 4,926 votes. 3. According to the petitioner, the election of the respondent is liable to be set aside for a number of reasons. First, according to the petitioner, the respondent is a permanent resident of Singapore and is a Director of a company registered in Singapore and holds shares therein. She also owns moveable and immoveable properties in Singapore and, therefore, is under an acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State & therefore disqualified for being elected as a Member of either House of the Parliament in terms of the provisions of Article 102 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that the respondent had been elected to Rajya Sabha in the year 2006. While filing her nomination for being elected to the Rajya Sabha, the respondent had categorically stated that she owned 50% shares in a residential premises at Lucky Towers, Grange Road, Singapore. This fact was conspicuously missing in the affidavit filed by the respondent while filing her nomination for election to the Lok Sabha in the year 2009. Thus, the respondent was alleged to have furnished incorrect information about her assets and thus committed a breach of the electoral law. It was also alleged that the respondent had under-valued the moveables and immoveables which she had shown to be her properties in the affidavit dated 26-3-2009, filed along with the nomination form. The respondent was stated to be Director of “Sakal Papers Private Limited”, a company publishing a daily newspaper, which fact was suppressed by her in the information furnished vide the affidavit in support of her nomination papers. She was also alleged to be holding 29% shares in a winery, established at Baramati by one Shri Vijay Mallya. The respondent was stated to be Director of “Sakal Papers Private Limited”, a company publishing a daily newspaper, which fact was suppressed by her in the information furnished vide the affidavit in support of her nomination papers. She was also alleged to be holding 29% shares in a winery, established at Baramati by one Shri Vijay Mallya. The respondent was alleged to have not disclosed the holding of shares worth crores of rupees in foreign countries as she was required to do under the mandatory provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. In view of this, the petitioner prayed that the respondent was disqualified under Article 102 of the Constitution of India for being elected as Member of the Parliament and, therefore, her election was liable to be declared as null & void. 4. The respondent appeared and filed a Written Statement. She stated that she did own a property at Lucky Towers in Singapore when she had filed affidavit in support of her nomination papers for being elected as a Member of the Rajya Sabha in the year 2006. She also admitted that this property was not mentioned in the affidavit dated 26-3-2009, filed while seeking nomination for being elected as Member of the Lok Sabha. According to her, since the property no longer belonged to her when she filed the nomination for the Lok Sabha in 2009, she was not required to show the said property in the affidavit in support of her nomination papers. She stated that she does own shares not only in a Singapore company but also in a Hong Kong company and she claims to have furnished the information of these holdings in a consolidated statement about her properties included in the affidavit. She stated that there is a property occupied by her husband at 15, Cairnhill Road, 21-03, Cairnhill Place, Singapore where her husband is a tenant & therefore, according to her, it was not necessary to mention this property in the affidavit. She denied that she holds any shares in Sakal Papers Private Limited, or in any winery plant established at Baramati, or any shares other than those disclosed, anywhere in the world. She denied that ownership of properties in Singapore amounted to acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State disqualifying her from Membership of parliament. 5. She denied that she holds any shares in Sakal Papers Private Limited, or in any winery plant established at Baramati, or any shares other than those disclosed, anywhere in the world. She denied that ownership of properties in Singapore amounted to acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State disqualifying her from Membership of parliament. 5. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed by this Court: “1 Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent is holding movable and immovable properties in Singapore? 2 Whether by holding movable and/or immovable property in Singapore, she is under acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to the foreign state & thereby she is disqualified for being chosen and for being member of the parliament in view of Article 102 of the Constitution of India? 3 Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent had suppressed or failed to give complete information about her and her husband’s holding movable and immovable property as well as shares in different companies in India as well as in foreign countries in her affidavit submitted alongwith her nomination papers before the returning officer? 3A If yes, whether on that ground, her election as member of Loksabha is liable to be set aside? 4 Whether the election of the respondent as a member of Loksabha from 35, Baramati Parliamentary Constituency is liable to be set aside?” 6. The parties went to trial on these issues. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW-No.1. Her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief takes the same line which she had taken in the petition. In her cross-examination, on behalf of the respondent, the petitioner stated that she had got information in respect of the properties of the respondent and the respondent’s husband from her husband who was examined as PW-No.2. Her cross-examination shows that she was personally not aware of most of the things which she had stated in the petition. She stated that she had no evidence to show that in the year 2009, when the respondent filed her nomination papers, the respondent was holding any immoveable property in Singapore. She did not know the name of the winery or the location of the winery in which the respondent was alleged to be holding 29% shares. She stated that she had no evidence to show that in the year 2009, when the respondent filed her nomination papers, the respondent was holding any immoveable property in Singapore. She did not know the name of the winery or the location of the winery in which the respondent was alleged to be holding 29% shares. She admitted that she did not have any evidence to show that the respondent herself held any house or the immoveable property in question. As to the information about the respondent’s Directorship of Sakal Papers Private Limited, she stated that this information was obtained on her request by Mr. Sancheti, a Chartered Accountant, who was examined as PW-No.3. She stated that unless a person is either a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore, he cannot possess any property in Singapore. Copies of entry permits issued to the respondent and her husband were admitted by her to be at Exhibits-15 and 16. 7. Her husband, who was examined as PW-No. 2, stated about downloading certain information from the internet and providing it for filing with the petition. His cross examination does not throw any additional light on what has been stated by him about downloading information from the internet. PW-No. 3 Sancheti stated about the respondent being Director of Sakal Papers on the basis of the information secured by him from the Registrar of Companies. His cross-examination also does not significantly change the position about the information received by him. 8. The respondent did not examine herself or any witness in support of her case. Most the documents which were tendered by the parties at trial were not disputed by either of them & therefore the case would have to be decided with reference to the documents which have been admitted in evidence. An attempt was made to seek from the Consul General of Singapore information about the particulars furnished by the respondent or her husband while applying for entry permit or identity card under the Singapore laws, as also, documents relating to application and approval for purchase of residential property at Lucky Towers. However, the Consular Officer expressed inability to accede to the High Court’s request for providing those documents. The documents which have been relied on by the parties are as under: “EXH. PARTICULARS NOS.1. Copy of the Election Result declared by the Returning Officer on 16th May, 2009. 2. However, the Consular Officer expressed inability to accede to the High Court’s request for providing those documents. The documents which have been relied on by the parties are as under: “EXH. PARTICULARS NOS.1. Copy of the Election Result declared by the Returning Officer on 16th May, 2009. 2. Copy of the Affidavit filed by the Respondent along with the nomination form while contesting for Rajyasabha seat from Maharashtra in the year 2006. 3. Copy of the Order dated 27th March, 2003 issued by the Election Commissioner of India. 4. Copy of the Affidavit filed by the Respondent along with her nomination form in present parliamentary election April 2009. 5. Copy of the Electoral Roll 6. Copy of the detailed statement of Respondent’s shareholding in the Laguna International PTE Ltd & M/s Radiant Ltd Hong Kong. 7. Certificate of M/s Ley & Howe (Corporate Services PTE Ltd) in respect of the shareholding of Mrs. Supriya Sule and Mr. Sadanand Sule in M/s Laguna International Pte Ltd. 8. Certificate of M/s Nexia Charles Mar Fan & Co a Certified Public Accountant, in respect of the shareholding of Mrs. Supriya Sule and Mr. Sadanand Sule in M/s Radiant Ltd Hong Kong. 9. Letters from ING Vysya Bank. 10. Letter from HDFC Bank 11. Letter from HDFC Bank 12. Letter from HSBC Bank 13. Letter from HSBC Bank 14. Statement of the Home Advantage NRO SB Account of Mr. Sadanand Sule in ANZ Grindlays Bank of January, 1996. 15. Affidavit in Chief/Additional Affidavit in Chief/Notes of Evidence, of the Petitioner. 16. Entry Permit of Mrs. Supriya Sule 17. Entry Permit of Mr. Sadanand Sule 18. Affidavit and Notes of Evidence of Mr. Surendra Sacheti (CA). 19. Letter from RBI to Petitioner dated 4th June 2009. 20. Certified Copy received from the Registrar of Companies about Directors of Sakal Papers. 21. Affidavit and Notes of Evidence of Mr. Jairaj Kakade. 22. People’s Profile from ACRA of Mrs. Supriya Sule. 23. Certificate of the Stamp Duty relating to the sale of the flat at Lucky Towers. 24. Letter of Confirmation & extension of stay for the flat at 15 Cairnhill Road, 21-03, Carinhill Place, Singapore 229650. 25. Relevant pages of the passports of Mrs. Supriya Sule and Mr. Sadanand Sule.” 9. 22. People’s Profile from ACRA of Mrs. Supriya Sule. 23. Certificate of the Stamp Duty relating to the sale of the flat at Lucky Towers. 24. Letter of Confirmation & extension of stay for the flat at 15 Cairnhill Road, 21-03, Carinhill Place, Singapore 229650. 25. Relevant pages of the passports of Mrs. Supriya Sule and Mr. Sadanand Sule.” 9. On the basis of this evidence, it would have to be found out as to whether the petitioner had discharged the burden cast on her to prove her case. 10. ISSUE NO.1: The respondent herself had admitted that she owns shares in M/s. Laguna International Pte Ltd. She has provided this information in a document annexed in the form of Affidavit of Documents. This document is at serial No.4 to the affidavit dated 14-12-2009. This shows that the respondent owns 1250 shares of the face value of Singapore $1 each. It appears that the remaining shares in the company - M/s. Laguna International Pte Ltd. – are owned by her husband Shri Sadanand Sule. She has also shown that she owns 1,90,000 shares of the face value of Hong Kong $1 each in M/s. Radiant Limited, Hong Kong. It has been pointed out that the total acquisition cost, i.e., `12,99,533.12 has been duly included in the affidavit filed along with her nomination papers. It appears that even M/s. Radiant Limited is a company owned by Shri Sadanand Sule and Mrs. Supriya Sule. They are the only two shareholders in the company. There is a Certificate of Stamp Duty dated 8-2-2007 in respect of transfer of property bearing building No.57, Grange Road, 11-01, Singapore 249569, where the names of the transferors are mentioned as Sadanand B. Sule and Supriya S. Sule and the name of the transferee is mentioned as Aston Properties Pte Ltd. This document is at Exhibit-23. This is possibly in respect of the flat at Lucky Towers, which has been transferred. Exhibit-24 is a document showing that Laguna International Pte Ltd., is the licensee in respect of 15, Cairnhill Road, Singapore, which appears to be a flat in a building having apartments. This is possibly in respect of the flat at Lucky Towers, which has been transferred. Exhibit-24 is a document showing that Laguna International Pte Ltd., is the licensee in respect of 15, Cairnhill Road, Singapore, which appears to be a flat in a building having apartments. Now, though the licencee is shown to be Laguna International Pte Ltd., since the company itself is owned by the respondent and her husband in its entirety, though a corporation has a distinct personality of its own, it need not be said that the respondent does not have rights in a property in Singapore. The property is undisputedly held by her or her husband or by M/s. Laguna International Pte Ltd., on a licence. Thus, as far as Issue No.1 is concerned, there should be no difficulty in holding that the petitioner has proved that the respondent holds moveable and immoveable properties in Singapore with the clarification that the word “holding” does not mean that she owns the property. She holds the apartment house as a licensee through M/s Laguna International Pte Ltd., which is a company owned by her and her husband. 11. ISSUE NO.2: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that holding moveable or immoveable property in Singapore compromises the position of the respondent as Member of Parliament and it could be said that it amounts to acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State and thereby the respondent is disqualified for being chosen as a Member of the Parliament in view of the provisions of Article 102 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of ready reference, the provision of Article 102 of the Constitution of India may be reproduced as under: “102. For the sake of ready reference, the provision of Article 102 of the Constitution of India may be reproduced as under: “102. Disqualifications for membership.- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder; (b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent; (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. {Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause] a person shall not be deemed to hold an an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State. (2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.”(emphasis supplied) 12. A person would be disqualified for being chosen as a Member if he is not a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired citizenship of a foreign State or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State. It is nobody’s case that the respondent is not a citizen of India and there is nothing to show that the respondent has acquired citizenship of a foreign State. There is not even such an allegation. As far as acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State is concerned, the arguments are based on interpretation of provisions of Singapore laws which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, imply that a person securing an interest in a property in Singapore would have to acknowledge allegiance or adherence to the laws of Singapore. 13. For residing in Singapore, the respondent and her husband are required to obtain an entry permit which is issued under the provisions of Part-III, Section 10 of the Immigration Act of Singapore. 13. For residing in Singapore, the respondent and her husband are required to obtain an entry permit which is issued under the provisions of Part-III, Section 10 of the Immigration Act of Singapore. The section provides that, any person seeking to enter Singapore, who is not entitled so to enter as a citizen of Singapore, has to make an application in the prescribed manner to the Controller for obtaining entry permit. The Controller then issues the requisite permit imposing requisite conditions. There is no dispute that the respondent has obtained such entry permit and copies of those entry permits obtained by the respondent and her husband are at Exhibits-16 and 17. The entry permits also bear endorsement dated 20-5-1992 requiring the holder of the permit to apply to the Commissioner of National Registration for an identify card. This identify card is issued under the National Registration Act (for short, “NR Act”) of Singapore. Section 2 of the NR Act contains various definitions, including that of a “householder”, which defines “householder” to mean the owner, tenant, sub-tenant or occupier of a house, shop house, flat, apartment, hut or other dwelling place. Section 5 requires a person lawfully resident within Singapore to be registered in accordance with the provisions of the NR Act. Section 7 provides for issuance of identify cards to persons who are so registered. Section 9 requires every householder to file such returns, as may be required by the authorities for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the NR Act. The provisions of the NR Act are supplemented by National Registration Regulations which provide for different colours for identity cards to be issued to citizens and non-citizens, requirement of re-registration, etc… 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to invoke the provisions of Residential Property Act (for short, “RP Act”) of Singapore to show that the respondent, by acquiring interest in residential property, has acknowledged allegiance or adherence to the State of Singapore. Section 4 of the RP Act provides that the Act will not apply to any transfer to or any purchase or acquisition by any foreign person of any estate or interest in residential properties which include a flat. Sub-section (2) of the said section puts a restriction on a foreigner acquiring all flats in the entire building. Section 4 of the RP Act provides that the Act will not apply to any transfer to or any purchase or acquisition by any foreign person of any estate or interest in residential properties which include a flat. Sub-section (2) of the said section puts a restriction on a foreigner acquiring all flats in the entire building. Therefore, so long as the respondent is not shown to have acquired entire building, it could not be said that acquisition of interest in a flat by her amounted her ceasing to be a foreigner in Singapore and thereby to an acknowledgement of allegiance to the State of Singapore. In case the entire building was purchased, Section 3 of the RP Act would apply. 15. The learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that any foreigner acquiring property in a foreign State or doing business in a foreign State or even staying as a tourist in a foreign State would obviously be subject to the laws of such State. It would be impossible to conceive of a situation where a foreigner could own property in India and claim to be governed by the laws of the State to which he belongs and defy the laws of the host country. Therefore, the requirement that a foreigner must abide by the laws of the host country does not amount to any allegiance or adherence to that country. The learned counsel also submitted and rightly in my view, that a distinction has to be made between allegiance or adherence to the laws of a country & allegiance or adherence to a foreign State as such. What is forbidden or what may run in conflict with Indian citizenship is allegiance or adherence to a foreign State and not adherence to the laws of that State, so long as the person concerned is doing business or staying in such foreign State. The respondent would obviously not be required to obey laws of Singapore even when she is in India. But to say that she could continue to obey only the laws of India and flout laws of Singapore even while in Singapore would be impermissible because even we would not concede such a concession to a foreigner visiting India. The respondent would obviously not be required to obey laws of Singapore even when she is in India. But to say that she could continue to obey only the laws of India and flout laws of Singapore even while in Singapore would be impermissible because even we would not concede such a concession to a foreigner visiting India. Therefore, merely because Singapore laws require the respondent to obtain an entry permit or to obtain an identify card or to seek permission for acquisition of interest in a property in Singapore, it does not follow that the respondent herein owes allegiance or adherence to the State of Singapore. 16. Both the learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on a Judgment of Full Bench of the Madras High Court in K.S. Haja Shareff v. His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Madras & others, reported in (AIR 1985 Madras 55). Though the Full Bench of the Madras High Court had granted certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court observing that the case does involved a substantial question of law as to interpretation of Article 191 of the Constitution, the parties do not seem to have taken the matter to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the law as enunciated by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court still guides Courts in the matter of what amounts to adherence to a foreign State. The facts in that case were somewhat different. There the petitioner had been appointed as Honorary Consul General of Turkey. The Government of India had granted its approval. But somehow the appointment could not be materialised. In the meantime, general elections were held in May, 1980 and the petitioner was sworn in as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in June, 1980. After the necessary appointment as Consul General came through, the petitioner assumed office as Consul General on 29-10-1980. The Governor of Tamil Nadu passed an order disqualifying the petitioner from Membership of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. In this context, the Full Bench considered various aspects of the matter, including debates in the Constituent Assembly, several Judgments and the meaning of the words given in dictionaries & then came to hold that the order disqualifying the petitioner did not suffer from any illegality. The observations of the Full Bench in para 28 of the Judgment may be of some interest. They read as under: “28. The observations of the Full Bench in para 28 of the Judgment may be of some interest. They read as under: “28. Whereas the word 'adherence' used in this Article is not restricted to the meanings given in the said dictionaries, but it could only be the ordinary meaning to be ascribed to this expression, in the context of maintaining purity of composition in Legislatures irrespective of existence of belligerency or otherwise. Adherence means that a person must follow or hold or maintain loyalty steadily & consistently to a person, body, group of State. As would be pointed out later on, by virtue of appointment made by Government of Turkey, the petitioner, as the dutiful & obedient Honorary Consul of Turkish Government, has agreed to abide by the directives of the foreign State, to the extent to which the Honorary Consul will have to function in this country. He will have to defend Turkish Nationals in this country, when actions are taken against them by the Governments in this country. A conflict of interest would arise, & such a person cannot be expected to be a member of the legislature. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, that till war is declared with turkey, he could be a member of this Assembly, because he is only concerned with development of trade or commerce to the benefit of Turkey, then, the time is not far off for the State Legislatures & Parliament, to have representatives of different foreign countries participating in debates, which involve development of trade & commerce and get this Nation adversely bound by financial commitments or strings being attached in commercial deals and the like, & each one of the representatives would be canvassing for exporting strategic and essential products to the country to which they are accredited rather than take care of the requirements of this Nation. After all, when trade and commerce come into play, the main criterion is to help the country to which he is accredited to make money, and not to look after the interests of the Nation.” 17. There can be no doubt that the observations came in the context of a person accepting Consular position. After all, when trade and commerce come into play, the main criterion is to help the country to which he is accredited to make money, and not to look after the interests of the Nation.” 17. There can be no doubt that the observations came in the context of a person accepting Consular position. In the present day world driven by personal ambition and greed, persons holding high constitutional offices & position in Legislatures should normally be expected to have no extra-territorial strings attached to them to ensure that they function independently. However, mere having business interest in a foreign country cannot lead to the inference of interest of this country being compromised. If it were to be held that person holding interest abroad would forsake the interest of his country, then Indians would have to confine themselves to India and could never pursue any global ambitions. Therefore, merely because the respondent owns some property and shares in companies abroad, it would not follow that she owes allegiance or adherence to the foreign country rather than the country of her origin. 18. Though both the learned counsel for the parties had drawn my attention to meanings in dictionaries, Judgments and even referred to the questions as to the scope of this inquiry, it would not be necessary to go through all that, since there is nothing in the Singapore laws, relied on by the petitioner, to show that ownership of shares in a company registered in Singapore or Hong Kong or acquisition of interest in residential property in Singapore amounts to an acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State. In view of this, Issue No.2 is answered in the negative. 19. ISSUE NO.3: According to the petitioner, in the affidavit filed by the respondent while being elected to Rajya Sabha in the year 2006, there was a reference to a property known as Lucky Towers, whereas in the affidavit filed in the year 2009, precisely on 26-3-2009, Lucky Towers is omitted. This has been duly explained by the respondent. In any case, the burden to prove that the premises in Lucky Towers continued to be owned by the respondent or that the respondent continued to have interest in the said premises at Lucky Towers was on the petitioner. This has been duly explained by the respondent. In any case, the burden to prove that the premises in Lucky Towers continued to be owned by the respondent or that the respondent continued to have interest in the said premises at Lucky Towers was on the petitioner. The petitioner had merely inferred - because the 2006 affidavit contained reference to Lucky Towers and the 2009 affidavit omitted it - that the respondent had suppressed her interest in the property. It was necessary for the petitioner to show that the respondent continued to have interest in Lucky Towers in order to allege that there was suppression of information about ownership of the property. As to the share holding in the two companies, it was pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the details about moveables given by the respondent in the affidavit filed on 26-3-2009 include the shares in M/s. Laguna International Pte Ltd., and M/s. Radiant Limited, though the break-up of each holding had not been given. As far as directorship of Sakal Papers Private Limited is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that being a Director of a company does not necessarily imply holding of shares. The petitioner had not placed on record anything to show that the respondent owned shares in Sakal Papers Private Limited & therefore there is nothing to show that any information in this behalf had been suppressed. 20. As far as NRE & NRO accounts held by the respondent as NRI (non-resident Indian), the details thereof are shown to have been furnished by the respondent and therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the respondent, this too would not show that there is any suppression of facts or failure to give complete information in respect of the respondent’s properties. True it is that for having such accounts, a person has to be out of India at least for 181 days. Whether such residence outside India for 181 days would still entitle the respondent to claim to be a person ordinarily resident of Baramati need not be gone into because such is nobody’s case. The respondent’s name appears in the voter’s list for the said constituency which should be conclusive of the fact that the respondent is ordinarily a resident of Baramati. 21. The respondent’s name appears in the voter’s list for the said constituency which should be conclusive of the fact that the respondent is ordinarily a resident of Baramati. 21. The learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that there is nothing to show that the respondent had suppressed any information pertaining to any cases against her. It is not the petitioner’s case that any information in this behalf had been suppressed. He submitted that even if the allegations of the petitioner as regards suppression of information about property are accepted for the sake of argument, still the election of the respondent cannot be declared void in view of the provisions of Section 100 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. The said section provides as under: “100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.- (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) if the High Court is of opinion - (a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected - (i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied - (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent, of the candidate or his election agent; (b) ...... (c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and (d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, Then the High Court may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.” (emphasis supplied) 22. It is not the case of the petitioner that on the date of the respondent’s election she was not qualified or was disqualified to be elected. There is no allegation of any corrupt practice by herself or her election agents. It is nobody’s case that any nomination has been improperly rejected. The allegation is about improper acceptance of the respondent’s nomination and non-compliance with the directions of the Election Commission under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules and Orders made there under. The Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination of the respondent on the ground that the information furnished by the respondent was inadequate or incorrect, since at that stage he had no business or even means to go into those questions. There can be no doubt that such a ground could be raised in an election petition. But here there is nothing to show that the information furnished by the respondent was either incorrect or amounted to suppression of any material fact. Therefore, there would be really no reason to justify the petitioner’s claim that the respondent’s election should be declared as void. But here there is nothing to show that the information furnished by the respondent was either incorrect or amounted to suppression of any material fact. Therefore, there would be really no reason to justify the petitioner’s claim that the respondent’s election should be declared as void. In any case, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, for invoking the provisions of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100, it would be necessary to show that the result of the elections had been materially affected because of non-compliance of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or the Rules or Orders made thereunder by not providing accurate information in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form. He submitted that the petitioner had secured around 1% of the votes polled by the respondent and even the nearest candidate trounced by the respondent secured only about 1/3rd of the votes polled by the respondent. It would be for the electors to decide as to whether the respondent should have been elected or not. It would have been open to the candidates in the fray to point out to the voters that the candidate had furnished incorrect information so that the candidate could have joined the issue & educated the voters in this behalf. Since it cannot be said that the result would have been materially affected, there is no question of declaring the respondent’s election as null & void, apart from the fact that there is nothing to show that any incorrect information had been supplied or any suppression of material information had been indulged in by the respondent. 23. In view of the above, Issue No.3 is also answered in the negative. As a result, there is no question of the election of the respondent being set aside. Issue Nos.3A and 4 are answered in the negative and the petition is dismissed.