Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 606 (TS)

D. K. Aruna v. Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy

2023-08-24

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Election Petition is filed under Sec. 80, 80A, 81, 100 R/w. 101 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1951) challenging the election of the Respondent No. 1 herein as Member of 79 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency, Telangana Legislative Assembly as void. 2. The Notification for elections to the Telangana Legislative Assembly was issued by the Election Commission of India on 12/11/2018. The last date for filing nominations was 19/11/2018, and the last date for withdrawal of candidature was 22/11/2018. Thereafter the date of poll was fixed as 7/12/2018. Pleadings in the Election Petition: 3. The petitioner herein submits that she filed her nomination on 19/11/2018 as a candidate of the Indian National Congress to 079 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency. Similarly, the Respondent No.1 herein also filed his nomination as a candidate of Telangana Rashtra Samithi. 4. The petitioner herein contends that on 11/12/2018 i.e., the date of counting, initially the EVM 's of 10 polling stations could not be opened. The details of the polling stations are as under: 5. It is contended that the 'Electronic Voting Machines ' (hereinafter referred to as EVM) in the said polling stations were thereafter opened by taking assistance of technical experts. However, it is contended that the petitioner 's election agent was not permitted to be present during the said period, and as such the petitioner herein submitted an application requesting scrutiny of paper trail pertaining to the 'Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail ' (hereinafter referred to as 'VVPAT ') with respect to EVM 's of the above 10 polling stations. The petitioner herein submits that her application was neither allowed nor rejected. Thus, the petitioner herein contends that the non-consideration of her request amounts to non-compliance of Rule 56-D of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules ') R/w. Sec. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951. 6. The petitioner further contends that on 11/12/2018 she submitted a specific request to count VVPAT 's of all the 253 polling stations, to the returning officer. It is contended that the returning officer failed to take action on her written request, resulting in violation of Sec. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951. 6. The petitioner further contends that on 11/12/2018 she submitted a specific request to count VVPAT 's of all the 253 polling stations, to the returning officer. It is contended that the returning officer failed to take action on her written request, resulting in violation of Sec. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951. The petitioner also contended that after the counting of the votes, the total number of votes shown in the report of the Returning Officer was 1,89,013 whereas the total number of votes counted from the ballot units came to 1,89,281. The following are the details of the polling stations where a difference in votes cast and counted was noticed: 7. Therefore, on the basis of the above the petitioner herein contends that the excess difference of 268 votes leads to an unimpeachable conclusion that the 8 polling stations where there was a difference in the votes cast and counted, were compromised. 8. The petitioner further contends that the respondent No.1 herein did not disclose the following details in the affidavit filed with his nomination: i. Dues to Government: The respondent No.1 is a registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP-11-AP-5577, against which E-Challans of Rs.235.00 are pending. Whereas, the respondent no.1 's wife is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. AP-09-BY-8979, on which E-Challans of Rs.975.00 are pending. ii. Bank Accounts: The respondent No.1 suppressed the existence of the following bank accounts: a. Bank Account bearing No.30156945667, with the State Bank of India, Gadwal ADB, Bheem Nagar. b. Bank Account bearing No.31631286695, with the State Bank of India, SARB, Hyderabad Stress Asset Recovery Branch. c. The bank account held by the respondent No.1 's wife with the State Bank of India, Rajeev Marg, Gadwal, bearning Account No.62427378817. d. The bank account held by the respondent No.1 's wife with the State Bank of India, Gadwal ABD, Bheem Nagar, Gadwal, bearning Account No.10899960020. iii. Loans: the respondent No.1 herein suppressed that he was in overdue of Rs.1,09.67,737 to banks and had taken loans amounting to Rs.1,21,51,805.00 from nationalized banks. iv. Lands owned: the respondent No.1 herein failed to disclose that he was the owner of Ac.24.09gts in Sy.No. 48, 49, 50, 65, 66, 68 and 69 situated in Puddur Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (presently Jogulamba Gadwal district), despite pleading the same before this Court in PIL No. 310 of 2015. 9. iv. Lands owned: the respondent No.1 herein failed to disclose that he was the owner of Ac.24.09gts in Sy.No. 48, 49, 50, 65, 66, 68 and 69 situated in Puddur Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (presently Jogulamba Gadwal district), despite pleading the same before this Court in PIL No. 310 of 2015. 9. Thus, the petitioner contends that the election of the respondent No.1 is void on account the 8 compromised polling booths and on account of filing false affidavit without disclosing his assets and liabilities. 10. On the basis of the above the petitioner herein sought for the following reliefs: i. Counting and scrutiny of paper trail of VVPAT 's of 253 polling stations; ii. Setting aside the election of the respondent No.1 as Member of 79 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency, Telangana Legislative Assembly; and iii. Consequential declaration of the petitioner herein as the returned candidate for 79 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency, Telangana Legislative Assembly. Service of Notice and Respondent being Set Ex parte: 11. The election petition was listed for hearing on admission before this Court on 28/2/2019. On the said date this Court issued notices to the respondents herein. Pursuant to the direction of issuance of notice to the respondents, the Registry of this Court had sent notices through RPAD to the respondents at the addresses mentioned in the election petition. 12. Insofar as the notice to respondent No.1 is concerned the Registry had addressed the same to H. No. 12-18/A, Bhureddypally, Dharur Mandal, 509125. The said address corresponds to the address furnished by the respondent No.1 in his Election Affidavit filed in Form No.26 (Ex.A-6). 13. The service report received by this Court records notices to Respondents No.1,2,4,6,7,11 to 13 were served by the process of the Court on 10/4/2019. 14. Further perusal of the record shows that the acknowledgment card received in respect of the notice sent to Respondent No.1 was delivered to, received and signed by one 'Mr. B. Ananta Reddy '. 15. The Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 555 has held that a notice sent by registered post to the proper address is deemed to be served under Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The relevant observations are as under: "12. ... But the presumption that is raised under Sec. 27 of the G.C. Act is a far stronger presumption. (2007) 6 SCC 555 has held that a notice sent by registered post to the proper address is deemed to be served under Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The relevant observations are as under: "12. ... But the presumption that is raised under Sec. 27 of the G.C. Act is a far stronger presumption. Further, while Sec. 114 of Evidence Act refers to a general presumption, Sec. 27 refers to a specific presumption. For the sake of ready reference, Sec. 27 of G.C. Act is extracted below: 27. Meaning of service by post - Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 13. Sec. 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. " 16. Therefore, as noted above since the address of the respondent No.1 is the same as the address provided by him in his Election Affidavit, it is needless to hold that the notice of the election petition has been duly and properly served on the respondent No.1. 17. However, as seen from the office note no appearance was filed for the respondents No.1,2,4,6,7,11 to 13 even by 24/10/2019 when the matter was taken up. 18. Thereafter, since the notices sent to respondents No. 3,5,8 to 10 were returned, this Court on 8/11/2019 vide order in I.A.No.2 of 2019 directed to effect service of notice on the unserved respondents through substituted mode, by causing publication of the notice in newspapers namely the local edition of 'Business Standard ' and the district edition of 'Andhra Jyothi ', English and Telugu Newspapers respectively. The petitioner herein vide USR No. 75248/2019 filed memo of proof of service of publication on 10/12/2019. 19. The petitioner herein vide USR No. 75248/2019 filed memo of proof of service of publication on 10/12/2019. 19. This Court on 25/11/2020, taking into consideration the service report for the notices sent by this Court and the memo of proof of service for the notices served through substitute mode filed by the Petitioner herein, set the respondents herein ex-parte. The docket order passed by this Court on 25/11/2020 reads as under: "As per the service report and as per the record, notices have been served on the respondents by the Court as well as by paper publication. The record does not disclose filing appearance for any of the respondents. Though notices were served on the respondents in December, 2019, itself there is no representation on their behalf. In the circumstances, the respondents are hereby set ex parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time for filing the petitioner 's affidavit-in-chief. List on 4/12/2020 " 20. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that initially the returning officer was arrayed as Respondent No.14 in the present petition. Thereafter on an application made by the returning officer vide I.A.No. 1 of 2019, this Court on 8/11/2019 directed his name to be deleted in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Michael B. Fernandez Vs C.K. Jaffer Sharief & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 521 . Evidence of the Petitioner: 21. The petitioner herein filed her Chief Examination Affidavit on 18/12/2020. Thereafter the petitioner herein examined herself as PW-1 and marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 as exhibits. 22. The following documents are marked by PW-1: i. Ex.A-1 is the list of contesting candidates. ii. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the Report No.22 dtd. 18/12/2018 submitted by the returning officer. iii. Ex.A-3 is the request letter dtd. 11/12/2018 submitted by the petitioner to the returning officer. iv. Ex.A-4 is the Final Result Sheet in Form - 20 prepared by the Returning Officer. v. Ex.A-5 is the True copy of the notification No. 380/TSLA/2018 dtd. 12/12/2018 published in Part No.20 of Telangana Gazette dtd. 12/12/2018. vi. Ex.A-6 is the True Copy of Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 in Form No.26. vii. Ex.A-7 is the Computer printed copy of the E-challans issued by the Telangana State Police. viii. Ex.A-8 is the CIBIL information and bank account statements of the Respondent No.1. ix. 12/12/2018 published in Part No.20 of Telangana Gazette dtd. 12/12/2018. vi. Ex.A-6 is the True Copy of Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 in Form No.26. vii. Ex.A-7 is the Computer printed copy of the E-challans issued by the Telangana State Police. viii. Ex.A-8 is the CIBIL information and bank account statements of the Respondent No.1. ix. Ex.A-9 is the order copy of this Court in PIL No.310 of 2015. Arguments of the Petitioner: 23. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Yogita Prakash contends, that paper trail is an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections to ensure the confidence of the voters in EVM 's. He contends that the conduct of the returning officer in refusing to invoke Rule 56D of the Rules, despite noticing an excess of 268 votes in the total votes counted, reflects that the returning officer was acting on behalf of the respondent No.1 herein. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Election Commission of India, (2013) 10 SCC 500 it is contended that unless a paper trail is ordered by this Court, malpractices of respondent No.1 cannot be uncovered. 24. Learned senior counsel further contends that it is mandatory for a candidate to file an affidavit under Rule 4A disclosing all the required particulars specified under Form No.26. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kisan Shankar Kathore Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant and Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 162 . it is contended that right to know about the candidates contesting in an election is a fundamental right of a citizen, thus an affidavit filed without divulging necessary particulars is an invalid nomination. He further contends that the election of the respondent No.1 ought to be declared as void as he withheld crucial information about his assets and liabilities. 25. I have taken note of the contentions urged. Point for determination: 26. At the outset the Supreme Court Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350 dealing with framing of issues in an ex parte proceeding held as under: "33 ....But there is substance in the other limb of this submission made by the learned senior counsel for the defendant-appellant. Point for determination: 26. At the outset the Supreme Court Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350 dealing with framing of issues in an ex parte proceeding held as under: "33 ....But there is substance in the other limb of this submission made by the learned senior counsel for the defendant-appellant. Even if the suit proceeds exparte and in the absence of a written statement, unless the applicability of Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC is attracted and the Court acts thereunder, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the Court cannot be dispensed with. In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of proof on the plaintiff is not very heavy. A prima facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of action would suffice and the Court would grant the plaintiff such relief as to which he may in law be found entitled. In a case which has proceeded ex-parte the Court is not bound to frame issues under Order XIV and deliver the judgment on every issue as required by Order XX Rule 5. Yet the Trial Court would scrutinize the available pleadings and documents, consider the evidence adduced, and would do well to frame the 'point for determination' and proceed to construct the ex-parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one. Merely because the defendant is absent the Court shall not admit evidence the admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. " From the above position of law, it is clear that the Court dealing with an application in ex parte is required to examine whether the evidence on record prima facie entitles the petitioner for the relief sought by him. Though while doing so the Court is not obligated to frame issues, it is however required to frame points for determination of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. 27. Therefore, taking into account the pleadings of the petitioner and the evidence adduced the following points fall for consideration before this Court: 1. Whether the action of the returning officer in not deciding the request of the Petitioner is in consonance with Rule 56D of the Rules? 2. 27. Therefore, taking into account the pleadings of the petitioner and the evidence adduced the following points fall for consideration before this Court: 1. Whether the action of the returning officer in not deciding the request of the Petitioner is in consonance with Rule 56D of the Rules? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of counting of paper trail recorded by the VVPAT 's to evaluate the difference in 268 votes? 3. Whether the respondent No.1 herein had made full/complete disclosure of the information required to be furnished in the affidavit filed in Form No.26? 4. Whether on account of non-disclosure of information, the election of the respondent No.1 can be declared as invalid? 5. Whether the petitioner herein is entitled for the consequential relief of being declared as the returned candidate for 79 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency, Telangana Legislative Assembly? Point No. 1: 28. Before delving into the facts at hand, it is relevant to examine the law regulating conducting of Elections. 29. Sec. 53 of the Act, 1971 reads as under: 53. Admission to the place fixed for counting. -(1) The returning officer shall exclude from the place fixed for counting of votes all persons except - (a) such persons (to be known as counting supervisors and counting assistants) as he may appoint to assist him in the counting; (b) persons authorised by the Election Commission; (c) public servants on duty in connection with the election; and (d) candidates, their election agents and counting agents. (2) No person who has been employed by or on behalf of, or has been otherwise working for, a candidate in or about the election shall be appointed under clause (a) of sub-rule (1). (3) The returning officer shall decide which counting agent or agents shall watch the counting at any particular counting table or group of counting tables. (4) Any person who during the counting of votes misconducts himself or fails to obey the lawful directions of the returning officer may be removed from the place where the votes are being counted by the returning officer or by any police officer on duty or by any person authorised in this behalf by the returning officer. A reading of the above provision indicates that Clause (d) of Subsec. (1) provides for the election agent of a candidate to be present at the place fixed for counting. 30. A reading of the above provision indicates that Clause (d) of Subsec. (1) provides for the election agent of a candidate to be present at the place fixed for counting. 30. Sec. 58 of the Act, 1971 reads as under: 58. Fresh poll in the case of destruction, etc., of ballot boxes. - (1) If at any election, - (a) any ballot box used at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll is unlawfully taken out of the custody of the presiding officer or the returning officer, or is accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost, or is damaged or tampered with, to such an extent, that the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained; or 1[(aa) any voting machine develops a mechanical failure during the course of the recording of votes; or] (b) any such error or irregularity in procedure as is likely to vitiate the poll is committed at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the Election Commission. (2) Thereupon the Election Commission shall, after taking all material circumstances into account; either - (a) declare the poll at that polling station or place to be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours, for taking a fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify the day so appointed and the hours so fixed in such manner as it may deem fit, or (b) if satisfied that the result of a fresh poll at that polling station or place will not, in anyway, affect the result of the election or that 2[the mechanical failure of the voting machine or] the error or irregularity in procedure is not material, issue such directions to the returning officer as it may deem proper for the further conduct and completion of the election. (3) The provisions of this Act and of any rules or orders made thereunder shall apply to every such fresh poll as they apply to the original poll.] From a reading of Sec. 58, it is clear that the above provision contemplates cases under which fresh poll can be conducted. Further, clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 58 mandates that the returning officer shall report any irregularity in procedure which is likely to vitiate the poll to the Election Commission. 31. Further, clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 58 mandates that the returning officer shall report any irregularity in procedure which is likely to vitiate the poll to the Election Commission. 31. Sec. 169(2)(g) of the Act, 1951 provides that the Central Government shall have power to make rules for scrutiny and counting of votes, including recounting of votes before the declaration of the result of election. 32. Rule 55C of the Rules reads as under: 55C. Scrutiny and inspection of voting machines. -(1) The returning officer may have the control units of the voting machines used at more than one polling station taken up for scrutiny and inspection and votes recorded in such units counted simultaneously. (2) Before the votes recorded in any control unit of voting machine are counted under sub-rule (1), the candidate or his election agent or his counting agent present at the counting table shall be allowed to inspect the paper seal and such other vital seals as might have been affixed on the unit and to satisfy themselves that the seals are intact. (3) The returning officer shall satisfy himself that none of the voting machines has in fact been tampered with. (4) If the returning officer is satisfied that any voting machine has in fact been tampered with, he shall not count the votes recorded in that machine and shall follow the procedure laid down in Sec. 58, or Sec. 58A or Sec. 64A, as may be applicable in respect of the polling station or stations where that machine was used. As observed above, Sub-rule (2) provides that the candidate or his election agent or his counting agent shall be allowed to inspect the unit to satisfy themselves that all vital seals are intact. 33. Rule 56D of the Rules reads as under: 56D.Scrutiny of paper trail. -(1) Where printer for paper trail is used, after the entries made in the result sheet are announced, any candidate, or in his absence, his election agent or any of his counting agents may apply in writing to the returning officer to count the printed paper slips in the drop box of the printer in respect of any polling station or polling stations. (2) On such application being made, the returning officer shall, subject to such general or special guidelines, as may be issued by the Election Commission, decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject in whole, if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (3) Every decision of the returning officer under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons therefor. (4) If the returning officer decides under sub-rule (2) to allow counting of the paper slips either wholly or in part or parts, he shall - (a) do the counting in the manner as may be directed by the Election Commission; (b) if there is discrepancy between the votes displayed on the control unit and the counting of the paper slips, amend the result sheet in Form 20 as per the paper slips count; (c) announce the amendments so made by him; and (d) complete and sign the result sheet. As observed above, Sub-rule (1) provides that a candidate or his election agent can make an application to the returning officer requesting counting of the paper trail. Whereas, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 56D mandates the returning officer to decide the application made by the candidate either allowing or rejecting the same. Similarly, Sub-rule (3) in unambiguous terms mandates that every decision of the returning officer shall be in writing and contain reasons. 34. In the facts at hand, the petitioner herein contends that the during the last phase of counting, EVM 's in ten (10) polling stations could not be opened, and that the same were opened by taking technical assistance. The petitioner further contends that, since her agent was not allowed to be present during the process of opening the EVM 's, her election agent had made a request to the returning officer requesting for scrutiny of paper trail pertaining to VVPAT 's with respect the ten (10) polling stations, and that the returning officer had neither rejected nor accepted her request. Thereafter the petitioner herein submitted the application dtd. 11/12/2018 marked as ExA-3 requesting for counting and scrutiny of VVPAT 's, expressing 'strong suspicion ' that all the EVM machines were manipulated. 35. Thereafter the petitioner herein submitted the application dtd. 11/12/2018 marked as ExA-3 requesting for counting and scrutiny of VVPAT 's, expressing 'strong suspicion ' that all the EVM machines were manipulated. 35. Having regard to the above contention urged and taking note of the relevant provisions, this Court is of the view that preventing the petitioner 's election agent from being present at the time of opening the EVM 's is in contravention of Sec. 53 of the Act, 1951. Further, as observed supra, the returning officer on receiving an application for request of scrutiny of paper trail under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 56D is duty bound to decide the application either allowing or rejecting the same with due reasons. 36. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the action of the returning officer in preventing the election agent from being present at the time of opening the 10 EVM 's and the inaction of the returning officer in deciding the application dtd. 11/12/2018 marked as Ex.A-3 is in violation of the procedure established under Sec. 53 of the Act, 1951 R/w Rule 56D(2) of the Rules. 37. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favor of the petitioner. Point No.2: 38. The petitioner herein contends that Ex.A-2 marked as Report No.22 dtd. 18/12/2018 filed by the returning officer in Form 17C, records the number of votes casted as 1,89,013 whereas the votes counted from the EVM 's is shown as 1,89,281. Therefore, the petitioner herein prays that unless scrutiny of paper trail of all VVPAT 's are ordered, the malpractice committed to create excess 268 votes in the EVM 's cannot be uncovered. 39. It is to be seen that scrutiny and counting of paper trail recorded in VVPAT 's cannot be granted for the mere asking or on suspicion expressed by the contesting candidates. The Supreme Court in R. Narayanan Vs. Semmalai And Ors. 1980 (2) SCC 537 held that a Court hearing the plea of inspecting ballot papers (which are similar to paper trail recorded in VVPAT 's) after the election process is complete, can allow such a plea only when the evidence adduced prima facie point out material irregularities in counting of votes. The Court further held, that such a plea can be allowed if it is imperatively necessary for deciding the issue and to do complete justice to the parties. The Court further held, that such a plea can be allowed if it is imperatively necessary for deciding the issue and to do complete justice to the parties. The relevant observations are as under: 22. Reliance was placed by the High Court on an observation of Krishna lyer, J. in this case that where the margin of difference is minimal the claim for the fresh poll cannot be summarily brushed aside. In the first place, this observation was really meant for the Returning Officer because at the time when request for re-count to the Returning Officer is made the electoral process is still continuing and if there are any counting errors they can be rectified before the election process is complete. This however cannot apply to the Court while dealing with an election petition because if a re-count is ordered at that stage then the electoral process has to be restarted afresh. In our country the election is an extremely expensive process and unless very clear case for recount is made out the candidates should not be put to unnecessary trouble and expense. Moreover, in the case of Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria v. Ram Gopal Singh and Ors. [1976] 1 SCR 191 this Court to which Krishna lyer, J. himself was a party observed : The above being the law on the point, it is clear that the learned Judge was in error in ordering general inspection and recount of the total votes polled at the election, merely because in these Additional Pleas the returned candidate also had by way of recrimination, complained of wrong reception and rejection of votes and wrong counting of votes. The pleas at this stage could not be investigated even in the recriminatory petition filed by the returned candidate. They were beyond the scope of the enquiry into the petitioner's case which (as set up in Para 11 of the Petition) fell under Sec. 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. 24. ... The pleas at this stage could not be investigated even in the recriminatory petition filed by the returned candidate. They were beyond the scope of the enquiry into the petitioner's case which (as set up in Para 11 of the Petition) fell under Sec. 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. 24. ... Although no cast-iron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down, yet from a breadroll of the decisions of this Court two broad guidelines are discernible; that the court would be justified in ordering a recount or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately in the election petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such and order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. 25. Finally, the entire case law on the subject regarding the circumstances under which re-count could be ordered was fully summarised and catalogued by this Court in the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and Ors. [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 202 to which one of us (Fazal Ali, J.) was a party and which may be extracted thus :-- The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where: (1) The election petition, contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (2) On the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting; and (3) The court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. " 40. From the position of law enunciated above, heavy burden lies on the petitioner to establish that ordering paper trail/counting of ballot papers was imperative to decide the issue. In other words, in order to seek the relief of counting of paper trail, the petitioner herein had to establish that the alleged irregularity had substantially affected the result of the election. 41. In other words, in order to seek the relief of counting of paper trail, the petitioner herein had to establish that the alleged irregularity had substantially affected the result of the election. 41. In the facts at hand the petitioner herein in para 17 of the ground specifically pleaded that the EVM 's were always in the custody of the election officials, after which they were in the custody of the Polling Officials till the conclusion of the poll; and that they were kept in safe custody till the counting. The petitioner further pleads that 'at any stage no private third party had access to EVM 's which also include the ballot units. ' Therefore, the petitioner herein admits that there was no opportunity for the EVM 's to be compromised. 42. At the cost of repetition, though the petitioner had a right to apply for counting the paper trail in VVPAT 's during the process of the counting, in order to make the same plea after the completion of counting the votes, the petitioner herein has to establish that the irregularity pleaded materially affected the result of the election. In the facts at hand, Ex.A-4 i.e., the Final Result Sheet filed in Form No.20 reflects that the respondent No.1 i.e., the returned candidate secured 100057 votes, whereas the petitioner who is the next candidate with highest majority secured 71612 votes. The difference between the votes being 28,445 votes, this Court is of the view that the irregularity occurred in counting 268 excess votes does not materially affect the result of the election. Therefore, the petitioner herein failed to make out sufficient grounds for granting the relief of scrutiny and counting of VVPAT 's at this belated stage. 43. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered against the petitioner. Point No. 3 & 4: 44. Rule 4A of the Rules mandates that a candidate is to submit a sworn affidavit in Form No. 26 along with his nomination papers. The said rule reads as under: [4A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper. 43. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered against the petitioner. Point No. 3 & 4: 44. Rule 4A of the Rules mandates that a candidate is to submit a sworn affidavit in Form No. 26 along with his nomination papers. The said rule reads as under: [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- Sec. (1) of Sec. 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.] 45. Since the petitioner herein contends that the respondent No.1 suppressed details of his assets and liabilities in the affidavit filed along with his nomination, the same shall be examined. 46. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent No.1 failed to disclose the dues owed by him to the government is concerned, this Court is of the view that as the said dues are fines payable for violation of Traffic Rules, they do not fall under the head 'Dues owed to the Government ', at best they fall under the head of 'other dues '. Since, the total value of such fines is Rs.1,209.00 which is a negligible amount, the same would not be sufficient to invalidate the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 herein. 47. The petitioner herein further contended that the respondent No.1 did not disclose his bank account details in the election affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018. To examine the above said contention, it is necessary to peruse the election affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018 marked as Ex.A-6. A perusal of the same reveals that in the column of bank accounts including savings accounts, the petitioner herein had mentioned 'NIL '. The same is extracted as under: 48. The petitioner herein marked Ex.A-8 comprising of the CIBIL Summary Statements and Bank Account Statements alleged to be belonging to the respondent No.1. The following are the details of the bank accounts filed before this Court: 49. In the backdrop of the above details, the observations of this Court are as under: i. The account in Sl. No.1 is primarily a loan account. The following are the details of the bank accounts filed before this Court: 49. In the backdrop of the above details, the observations of this Court are as under: i. The account in Sl. No.1 is primarily a loan account. In addition, the same was written off by virtue of payment made on 29/2/2016 i.e. before the date of filing the affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018. Further the closing balance was recorded as Rs.0.0. Thus, the non-disclosure of a closed loan account does not amount to suppression. ii. Similarly, the account in Sl. No.2 was a loan account which was written off by virtue of payment on 30/5/2018 i.e. before the date of filing the affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018. Further the closing balance was recorded as Rs.0.0. Hence non-disclosure of the same does not amount to suppression. iii. Insofar as Sl.No.3 is concerned the same is a current account of the Respondent No.1 with a closing balance of Rs.19,911.50 as on 30/4/2018. Though no new transactions were shown after the said date, the closing balance remained Rs.19,911.50, indicating the continuation of the account. That apart the address mentioned in the said account corresponds to the address given by the respondent No.1 in his election affidavit marked as Ex.A-6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the non-disclosure of the said account amounts to suppression of material facts. iv. Similarly, the account in Sl.No.4 shows a closing balance of Rs.16,015.00 on 25/12/2018 which is after the date of filing the election affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018. Thus, non-disclosure of the same amounts to suppression of material facts. v. Further, the account details provided in Sl.No.5 reflect the name of the respondent No.1 's wife. Further, the account statement reflects transactions on 11/1/2019, with a closing balance of Rs.43,742.76. The said date is clearly after filing of the election affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018, indicating that the same was a continuing account. Therefore, nondisclosure of the said account in the affidavit filed in Form - 26 amounts to suppression of material facts. vi. Lastly, the account details provided in Sl.No.6 reflect the name of the respondent No.1 's wife. Further the account statement reflects transactions on 25/12/2018, with a closing balance of Rs.1,82,723.34. The said date being after the filing of the election affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018, the nondisclosure of the said account in the affidavit filed in Form - 26 also amounts to suppression of material facts. 50. Further the account statement reflects transactions on 25/12/2018, with a closing balance of Rs.1,82,723.34. The said date being after the filing of the election affidavit dtd. 19/11/2018, the nondisclosure of the said account in the affidavit filed in Form - 26 also amounts to suppression of material facts. 50. In conclusion with regards to non-disclosure of bank accounts in the affidavit filed in Form - 26, this Court is of the view that the documents filed by petitioner establish her case. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the respondent No.1 has suppressed the same in his affidavit. 51. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 has suppressed that he owes Rs.109,67,737.00 to banks as overdue; and that he had taken loans from nationalized banks to the tune of Rs.1,21,51,805.00. In support of her contention the petitioner herein filed the Respondent No.1 's CIBIL Information marked as a part of EX.A-8. The veracity in the said plea shall be examined in the succeeding paragraphs. 52. The respondent herein in his affidavit filed in Form No. 26 marked as Ex.A-6, disclosed his liabilities as under: 53. A perusal of the CIBIL Consumer Credit Information marked as a part of Ex.A-8 reveals the following: i. At page 88 of the election petition, the Respondent No.1 provided two addresses as his permanent address viz., No. 1: H.No. 7/11/139, Sri Sai Sadan, Sreenivasa Colony, Nallakunta, Bhureddypally, Gadwal, 509125. No. 2: 12- 18/A, Bhooreddypally, Dharm Mandal Mahabubnagar, 509001. ii. The account summary shows that the respondent No.1 had 12 accounts. Out of the said accounts 9 accounts reflect 0 balances. From the remaining three accounts, two account reflect as Auto Loans sanctioned for Rs.9,30,000.00 and Rs.9,55,000.00 each. The Current balance of the said loan accounts are recorded as Rs.6,21,568.00 each. The remaining account is an agricultural loan with current balance of Rs.1,09,08,669.00. iii. The final page in the CIBIL Consumer Credit Information (at Page 93 of the election petition) record 10 credit enquiries. However, the same being in the nature of enquires need not be looked into for the purpose of this application. 54. Therefore, in conclusion to the findings on the disclosure of liabilities this Court is of the view that the disclosure made by the respondent No.1 under the head of liabilities in Ex.A-6, appear to be bona fide. 55. However, the same being in the nature of enquires need not be looked into for the purpose of this application. 54. Therefore, in conclusion to the findings on the disclosure of liabilities this Court is of the view that the disclosure made by the respondent No.1 under the head of liabilities in Ex.A-6, appear to be bona fide. 55. Lastly, the petitioner herein contends that the respondent No.1 did not disclose the land owned by him in Sy.No. 48, 49, 50, 65, 66, 68 and 69 situated in Puddur Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (presently Jogulamba Gadwal district), admeasuring Ac.24.09gts, despite pleading the same before this Court in PIL No. 310 of 2015. 56. The following are the disclosures made by the respondent No.1 in the Details of Immovable Assets: 57. The petitioners herein marked the order copy of this Court in PIL No. 310 of 2015 dtd. 14/3/2016 as Ex.A-9. The Respondent No.1 herein and his wife Smt. B. Jyothi are arrayed therein as Respondents No. 12 & 15 respectively. The said PIL was filed seeking the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is, therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any Writ or direction, one more particularly one in the nature of Writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 11 in not taking steps against the illegal construction of the godowns over an extent of Ac.24.09 guntas of agriculture land in Survey Nos.48, 49, 50, 65, 66, 68 and 69 situated at Puddur Village, Gadvel Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and the illegal encroachment of a cart track in Survey Nos.48, 49 and 50 of Puddur Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, by the respondent Nos.12 to 17, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional besides being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 11 to take steps against the respondents 12 to 17 in accordance with law, and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 58. The respondent No.1 in the said PIL had represented before this Court that he is the owner of the said property and the construction of godowns was authorized. The respondent No.1 in the said PIL had represented before this Court that he is the owner of the said property and the construction of godowns was authorized. The relevant extract from the order of this Court reads as under: "Learned Counsel for unofficial respondents submits that unofficial respondents may be given an opportunity to produce all documents before the concerned authority to prove that construction of godowns is authorized and they are the owners of the same. " 59. Thereafter, this Court had granted the unofficial respondents therein an opportunity to produce the relevant documents to show their title and interest in the property along with the necessary building permissions obtained by them for construction of godowns. 60. It is pertinent to note that there is no whisper of the said land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.24.09 gts in Sy.No. 48, 49, 50, 65, 66, 68 & 69 situated in Puddur Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (presently Jogulamba Gadwal district) including the godowns said to have been constructed thereon, in the Election Affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 marked as Ex.A-6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the non-disclosure of the ownership of the said land either under the head of 'Agricultural lands ' or under the head of 'Commercial Buildings ' amounts to suppression of material facts. 61. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent No.1 suppressed material facts with regard to his assets and liabilities in the Election affidavit marked as Ex.A-6. 62. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered against the respondent No.1. 63. In order to examine whether the election of the returned candidate can be held void on filing of false affidavit, it is necessary to examine whether the same attracts the grounds provided under Sec. 100 of the Act, 1951. The said provision reads as under: 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. -(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. In order to examine whether the election of the returned candidate can be held void on filing of false affidavit, it is necessary to examine whether the same attracts the grounds provided under Sec. 100 of the Act, 1951. The said provision reads as under: 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. -(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (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 interests 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; (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. As observed above, under Sec. 100(1)(b) the election of a candidate can be declared void if he is found to have committed any corrupt practices. 64. Sec. 123 of the Act, 1951 enumerates actions which constitute corrupt practices. Sub-sec. (2) of the said provision reads as under: (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person [with the consent of the candidate or his election agent], with the free exercise of any electoral right: Provided that - (a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who - (i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause; (b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this clause. On an analysis of the above provisions, it is clear that exerting undue influence with an intention to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right constitutes a corrupt practice attracting Sec. 100(1)(b) of the Act, 1951. 65. In order to decide whether filing a false affidavit amounted to undue influence, it is necessary to visit the law laid down by the Apex Court in the following decisions. 66. The Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors, (2002) 5 SCC 294 , held that the citizenry of a democratic society has a right to be sufficiently informed about the candidates contesting in elections, so as to ensure intelligent decision making while casting votes. The Apex Court observed that in order to cure the cancerous growth of corruption and black money held by people in posts of power, the source of expenditure incurred by the political parties and candidates are to be disclosed. The Apex Court further opined that in order to ensure people 's representatives have not miscomputed themselves in collecting wealth after being elected, the citizens who elect MP 's and MLA 's are entitled to know the assets and liabilities owned by them prior to being elected. The relevant observations are as under: "53.To sum up the legal and constitutional position with emerges from the aforesaid discussion, it can be stated that:- 1. The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections and the word 'elections' is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages and embraces many steps. 2. The limitation on plenary character of power is when the Parliament or State Legislature has made a valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission is required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair election. In case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair election. Constitution has taken care of leaving scope for exercise of residuary power by the Commission in its own right as a creature of the Constitution in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in a large democracy, as every contingency could not be foreseen or anticipated by the enacted laws or the rules. By issuing necessary directions Commission can fill the vacuum till there is legislation on the subject. In Kanhiya Lal Omar's case, the Court construed the expressions "superintendence, direction and control" in Article 324(1) and held that a direction may mean an order issued to a particular individual or a precept which may have to follow and it may be a specific or a general order and such phrase should be construed liberally empowering the election commission to issue such orders. 3. The word "elections" includes the entire process of election which consists of several stages and it embraces many steps, some of which have an important bearing on the process of choosing a candidate. Fair election contemplates disclosure by the candidate of his past including the assets held by him so as to give a proper choice to the candidate according to his thinking and opinion. As stated earlier, in Common Cause case (supra), the Court dealt with a contention that elections in the country are fought with the help of money power which is gathered from black sources and once elected to power, it becomes easy to collect tons of black money, which is used for retaining power and for re-election. If on affidavit a candidate is required to disclose the assets held by him at the time of election, voter can decide whether he could be re- elected been in case where he has collected tons of money 54. Presuming, as contended by the learned senior counsel Mr. Ashwini Kumar, that this condition may not be much effective for breaking a vicious circle which has polluted the basic democracy in the country as the amount would be unaccounted. May be true, still this would have its own effect as a step-in-aid voters may not elect law-breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy may blossom. 4. Ashwini Kumar, that this condition may not be much effective for breaking a vicious circle which has polluted the basic democracy in the country as the amount would be unaccounted. May be true, still this would have its own effect as a step-in-aid voters may not elect law-breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy may blossom. 4. To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election, the Commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by the political parties and this transparency in the process of election would include transparency of a candidate who seeks election or re-election. In a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The little man of this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted. 5. The right to get information in democracy is recognised all throughout and it is natural right flowing from the concept of democracy. At this stage, we would refer to Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which is as under:- "(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice." 6. Cumulative reading of plethora of decisions of this Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental to the public interest, this Court would have ample jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution to issue necessary directions to the Executive to subserve public interest. 7. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voters's speech or expression in case of election would include casting of votes that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is must. 7. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voters's speech or expression in case of election would include casting of votes that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is must. Voter's (little man-citizen's) right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over before making his choice of electing law breakers as law makers. " 67. The Supreme Court had reiterated the importance of disclosure of a candidate 's assets and liabilities in People's Union for P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, 1998 Cri LJ 2930. They while holding that right to know the assets and liabilities of a candidate is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The relevant observations are as under "B. Secondly, we would reiterate that the primary duty of the Judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear or favour, without being biased by political ideology or economic theory. Interpretation should be in consonance with the Constitutional provisions, which envisage a republic democracy. Survival of democracy depends upon free and fair election. It is true that the elections are fought by political parties, yet election would be a farce if the voters are unaware of antecedents of candidates contesting elections. Their decisions to vote either in favour of 'A' or 'B' candidate would be without any basis. Such election would be neither free nor fair. 18. So, the foundation of a healthy democracy is to have well-informed citizens-voters. The reason to have right of information with regard to the antecedents of the candidate is that voter can judge and decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. It is voter's discretion whether to vote in favour of an illiterate or literate candidate. It is his choice whether to elect a candidate against whom criminal cases for serious or non-serious charges were filed but is acquitted or discharged. He is to consider whether his candidate may or may not have sufficient assets so that he may not be tempted to indulge in unjustified means for accumulating wealth. It is his choice whether to elect a candidate against whom criminal cases for serious or non-serious charges were filed but is acquitted or discharged. He is to consider whether his candidate may or may not have sufficient assets so that he may not be tempted to indulge in unjustified means for accumulating wealth. For assets or liability, the voter may exercise his discretion in favour of a candidate whose liability is minimum and/or there are no over-dues of public financial institution or government dues. From this information, it would be, to some extent, easy to verify whether unaccounted money is utilized for contesting election and whether a candidate is contesting election for getting rich or after being elected to what extent he became richer. Exposure to public scrutiny is one of the known means for getting clan and less polluted persons to govern the country. A little man--a citizen--a voter is the master of his vote. He must have necessary information so that he can intelligently decide in favour of a candidate who satisfies his criterion of being elected as M.P. or M.L.A. On occasions, it is stated that we are not having such intelligent voters. This is no excuse. This would be belittling a little citizen/voter. He himself may be illiterate but still he would have guts to decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. In any case, for having free and fair election and not to convert democracy into a monocracy and mockery or a farce, information to voters is the necessity. 54.To combat this naked display of unaccounted/black money by the candidate, declaration of assets is likely to have check of violation of the provisions of the Act and other relevant Acts including Income Tax Act. 75.Hence, in our view, right of a voter to know bio-date of a candidate is the foundation of democracy. The old dictum--let the people have the truth and the freedom to discuss it and all will go well with the Government--should prevail. 126.Disclosure of assets and liabilities is another thorny issue. If the right to information is to be meaningful and if it is to serve its avowed purpose, I am of the considered view that the candidate entering the electoral contest should be required to disclose the assets and liabilities (barring articles of household use). 126.Disclosure of assets and liabilities is another thorny issue. If the right to information is to be meaningful and if it is to serve its avowed purpose, I am of the considered view that the candidate entering the electoral contest should be required to disclose the assets and liabilities (barring articles of household use). A member of Parliament or State Legislature is an elected representative occupying high public office and at the same time, he is a 'public servant' within the meaning of Prevention of Corruption Act as ruled by this Court in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, 1998 Cri LJ 2930. They are the repositories of public trust. They have public duties to perform. It is borne out by experience that by virtue of the office they hold there is a real potential for misuse. The public awareness of financial position of the candidate will go a long way in forming an opinion whether the candidate, after election to the office had amassed wealth either in his own name or in the name of family members viz., spouse and dependent children. At the time when the candidate seeks re-election, the citizens/voters can have a comparative idea of the assets before and after the election so as to the assess whether the (SIC) public officehad possibly been used for self-aggrandizement. Incidentally, the disclosure will serve as a check against misuse of power for making quick money--a malady which nobody can deny, has been pervading the political spectrum of our democratic nation. As regards liabilities, the disclosure will enable the voter to know, inter alia, whether the candidate has outstanding dues payable to public financial institutions or the Government. Such Information has a relevant bearing on the antecedents and the propensities of the candidate in his dealings with public money. 'Assets and liabilities' is one of the important aspects to which extensive reference has been made in Association for Democratic Reforms case. The Court did consider it, after an elaborate discussion, as a vital piece of information as far as the voter is concerned. But, unfortunately, the observations made by this Court in this regard have been given a short shrift by the Parliament with little realization that they have significant bearing on the right to get information from the contesting candidates and such information is necessary to give effect to the freedom of expression. 131. But, unfortunately, the observations made by this Court in this regard have been given a short shrift by the Parliament with little realization that they have significant bearing on the right to get information from the contesting candidates and such information is necessary to give effect to the freedom of expression. 131. By calling upon the contesting candidate to disclose the assets and liabilities of his/her spouse, the fundamental right to information of a voter/citizen is thereby promoted. When there is a competition between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves larger public interest. The right to know about the candidate who intends to become a public figure and a representative of the people would not be effective and real if only truncated information of the assets and liabilities is given. It cannot be denied that the family relationship and social order in our country is such that the husband and wife look to the properties held by them as belonging to the family for all practical purposes, though in the eye of law the properties may distinctly belong to each of them. By and large, there exists a sort of unity of interest in the properties held by spouses. The property being kept in the name of the spouse benami is not unknown in our country. In this situation, it could be said that a countervailing or paramount interest is involved in requiring a candidate who chooses to subject himself/herself to public gaze and scrutiny to furnish the details of assets and liabilities of the spouse as well. That is one way of looking at the problem. More important, it is to be noted that the Parliament itself accepted in principle that not only the assets of the elected candidates but also his or her spouse and dependent children should be disclosed to the constitutional authority and the right of privacy should not come in the way of such disclosure;.... 68. The Supreme Court in Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 699 held that filing false affidavit amounted to undue influence under Sec. 123 (2) of the Act, 1951. The relevant paragraphs are as under: "63. 68. The Supreme Court in Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 699 held that filing false affidavit amounted to undue influence under Sec. 123 (2) of the Act, 1951. The relevant paragraphs are as under: "63. We shall now deal with prayer No. 2 which seeks a declaration that nondisclosure of assets and sources of income would amount to 'undue influence'-a corrupt practice Under Sec. 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 and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 467 . It was a case arising under the Tamil Nadu 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 Sec. 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 nondisclosure of assets and sources of income of the CANDIDATES and their ASSOCIATES would constitute a corrupt practice falling under heading 'undue influence' as defined Under Sec. 123(2) of the RP Act of 1951. We, therefore, allow prayer No. 2. " 69. We, therefore, allow prayer No. 2. " 69. In the light of the position of law as enunciated by the Hon 'ble Apex Court, this Court holds that filing of the false affidavit by the respondent No.1: i. without disclosing the bank accounts held by him and his wife; and ii. without disclosing the immovable properties as noted above. is a corrupt practice under Sec. 123(2) of the Act, 1951. Resultantly, the election of the respondent No.1 is to be declared as void under Sec. 100(1)(b) of the Act. 70. Accordingly Point No.3 and 4 are answered in favour of the petitioner. Point No.5: 71. Sec. 84 of the Act, 1951 provides for the election petitioner, to seek an additional relief for being declared duly elected. 72. The votes gained by all the candidates as per the Final Result Sheet marked as Ex.A-4 is as under: 73. Since, the petitioner herein has secured next highest votes after the respondent No.1, and this Court is now holding that the election of respondent No.1 is void, the petitioner herein is entitled to be declared as duly elected. 74. Accordingly, the Election Petition is allowed, declaring the election of respondent No.1 as returned candidate for 79 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency, Telangana Legislative Assembly as void. The petitioner herein being the next candidate with highest votes is declared as returned candidate for 79 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency, Telangana Legislative Assembly with effect from 12/12/2018. The respondent No.1 is sentenced with fine of Rs.2,50,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) as a penalty for filing false affidavit. Respondent No.1 is also directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000.00 to the petitioner. 75. Pending, miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. 76. Today when the matter is listed for pronouncement of orders, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the Registry that Sri. N. Manohar, learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.1 on 18/8/2023 and also filed an interlocutory application being I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking the following relief: " ... it is prayed that this Hon 'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein and counsel to inspect the file in E.P.No. 4 of 2019, for taking appropriate steps and pass any such other order or orders as may be deemed appropriate in the interest of justice. it is prayed that this Hon 'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein and counsel to inspect the file in E.P.No. 4 of 2019, for taking appropriate steps and pass any such other order or orders as may be deemed appropriate in the interest of justice. " In the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2023, the respondent No.1 states to have learnt about the pendency of the present Election Petition against him, only after reading an article published in 'Andhra Jyothi, Gadwal Edition ' on 26/7/2023. Therefore, by the filing the I.A.No.1 of 2023, the respondent No.1 seeks leave of this Court to inspect the file. 77. It is pertinent to note that, the notice of this Court was sent to the address furnished by the respondent No.1 in his election Affidavit filed in Form No.26. Further, this Court in I.A. No.2 of 2019 vide order dtd. 8/11/2019, directed substitute service to be affected on the unserved respondents, in the very same newspaper i.e., Andhra Jyothi. Thereafter, the instant election petition was heard and reserved only after the Respondent No.1 was duly set exparte on 25/11/2020. Moreover, the respondent No.1 did not file any interlocutory application till date under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. 78. Thus, as the main petition itself is listed for pronouncement of orders today, this Court is of the view that no orders need be passed in the interlocutory application filed under Sec. 151 of CPC vide I.A.No. 1 of 2023 to inspect the file, as the entire record would be available on account of disposal of the election petition.