India’s top court has clarified where the line must be drawn between technical lapses and genuine electoral malpractice. The Supreme Court has ruled that failing to disclose certain assets in a nomination affidavit—unless the omission is both substantial and material—does not automatically invalidate an election.
The judgment came in a challenge to the election of Bharat Rashtra Samiti legislator Kova Laxmi, who secured victory from Asifabad in the 2023 Telangana Assembly polls. The Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that minor omissions cannot be stretched to undo the will of the electorate.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, treats only serious concealments as corrupt practices. “Courts should not rush to strike down an election on pedantic grounds,” the bench noted, pointing out that the disclosure requirement is intended to ensure transparency, not to weaponize minor errors.
The petitioner had argued that Laxmi’s affidavit failed to properly reflect her income details for certain years, thereby rendering her nomination invalid. However, the Court found that while Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules requires candidates to disclose five years of financial information, the lapse in this case was not of such gravity as to distort the election outcome.
The ruling draws a sharp distinction between omissions relating to assets or education, which may be treated as minor, and the non-disclosure of criminal records, which the Court reiterated would amount to a substantial defect capable of nullifying an election.
Referring to earlier precedents including Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) and Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang, the Court underlined the “true test”: whether the non-disclosure has consequential impact on the voter’s right to make an informed choice.
In this case, it found no such impact. Laxmi’s election, therefore, stands undisturbed.
