Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification for False Affidavit—Non-Disclosure of 138 NI Act Conviction Makes Election Void

Case Name: Poonam v. Dule Singh & Ors.
Citation: SLP (C) No. 12000 of 2025; 2025 INSC 1284
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s election as Councilor was rightly declared void because she knowingly failed to disclose her existing conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the affidavit mandated by Rule 24-A of the 1994 Rules. Such non-disclosure amounts to improper acceptance of the nomination under Section 22(1)(d)(i) and non-compliance with the Act and Rules under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The Court clarified that the fact that the conviction was later set aside is irrelevant, as eligibility and disclosure obligations are tested as on the date of nomination, and suppression of criminal antecedents directly impedes free and informed exercise of electoral choice.

Summary: In the Bhikangaon Nagar Parishad election for Ward No. 5, Poonam was elected Councilor but had not disclosed her 07.08.2018 conviction under Section 138 NI Act, for which she had been sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The election petitioner argued that this mandatory disclosure was suppressed in violation of Rule 24-A, which requires candidates to reveal all criminal convictions, irrespective of the nature of the offence. Both the Trial Court and High Court held that such non-disclosure violated voters’ right to full and truthful information and materially affected the election. Poonam argued before the Supreme Court that the conviction was not for a serious or morally turpitudinous offence, that she was later acquitted, and that the election petitioner failed to prove material effect. The Court rejected these arguments, holding that Rule 24-A imposes a categorical obligation to disclose all convictions, that subsequent acquittal cannot cure past suppression, and that concealment itself amounts to undue influence as per Association for Democratic Reforms, Resurgence India, Krishnamoorthy, Kisan Shankar Kathore, and Mairembam Prithviraj. The Court also held that the subsequent bye-election did not render the matter infructuous because results had been made subject to the outcome of the SLP.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the petitioner’s failure to disclose her operative conviction under Section 138 NI Act constituted a clear breach of Rule 24-A, resulting in improper acceptance of her nomination and rendering her election void under Section 22(1)(d) of the 1961 Act. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to exercise Article 136 jurisdiction, emphasised that suppression of material criminal information fatally undermines the right of voters to make an informed choice, and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court.