KARIKHO KRI vs. NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang and Another revolves around allegations against the appellant, Karikho Kri, who emerged victorious in the 2019 Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections from the 44 Tezu (ST) constituency. The primary issues include non-disclosure of assets, the validity of his nomination under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and accusations of corrupt practices under Section 123 of the RPA. The High Court invalidated the election, leading to the Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court re-evaluated the High Court’s interpretation, including the application of Sections 100 and 123, while also referencing precedents and statutory interpretations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and constitutional principles concerning elections.

Keywords: Election Nomination, Representation of the People Act, Corrupt Practices, Voter’s Right to Know, Non-Disclosure of Assets.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang and Another

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023

iii) Judgement Date: April 9, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

vi) Author: Justice Sanjay Kumar

vii) Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 394 : 2024 INSC 289

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv), and 123(2).
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  • Sale of Goods Act, 1930
  • Indian Constitution

ix) Judgments Overruled: None specified.

x) Case is Related to: Election Law, Constitutional Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from an election dispute involving allegations against the successful candidate, Karikho Kri, for improper nomination and corrupt practices. The High Court annulled the election under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RPA. The Supreme Court revisited these findings, scrutinizing issues like ownership transfer of vehicles, disclosure obligations under Form 26, and the substantiality of non-compliance affecting election results. Additionally, constitutional principles balancing transparency and the right to privacy were pivotal to the Court’s reasoning.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  • In 2019, Karikho Kri, Dr. Mohesh Chai (BJP), and Nuney Tayang (INC) contested the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly elections.
  • Kri won with a slim margin of 7538 votes.
  • Tayang filed a petition alleging non-disclosure of vehicles and government dues by Kri in his nomination affidavit, asserting violations of Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RPA.
  • The High Court declared the election void but declined to declare Tayang as the duly elected candidate.
  • Kri appealed the decision, contesting findings of improper acceptance of his nomination and allegations of corrupt practices.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether non-disclosure of three vehicles constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the RPA.
  2. Whether failure to submit a “No Dues Certificate” rendered the nomination invalid.
  3. Whether incomplete disclosure of municipal dues in Form 26 was a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RPA.
  4. Whether improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the election result as per Section 100(1)(d)(i).

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The non-disclosure of vehicles, sold or gifted long before nomination, could not constitute undue influence or corrupt practice.
  • Kri argued that the High Court erroneously applied the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 concerning ownership definitions, which were specific to accident claims and not applicable to election disputes.
  • Failure to submit the “No Dues Certificate” did not affect the election as there were no outstanding government dues.
  • Partial disclosure of municipal taxes in Form 26 did not materially impact the election or constitute corrupt practice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • Non-disclosure of assets, including vehicles still registered under the names of Kri’s dependents, constituted a corrupt practice and undue influence.
  • Omission of a “No Dues Certificate” indicated defective nomination, making its acceptance improper.
  • The High Court correctly linked non-compliance with Section 100(1)(d)(iv), asserting that such defects materially affected the election outcome.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s findings, holding that:

  • Ownership transfer principles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were misapplied, as the vehicles were sold/gifted before nomination.
  • Non-submission of a “No Dues Certificate” and partial disclosure of taxes were not defects of substantial character affecting the election outcome.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court reiterated the principle that every non-disclosure does not amount to substantial non-compliance under Section 100. Transparency must be balanced with a candidate’s right to privacy.

c. Guidelines:

  • Defects must materially affect election results to invalidate nominations.
  • Non-disclosure of minor or inconsequential assets cannot constitute undue influence or corrupt practice.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case clarifies the threshold for invalidating elections under Sections 100 and 123 of the RPA. It underscores the necessity for courts to distinguish between material and immaterial defects in nomination affidavits, preserving the sanctity of elections while ensuring compliance with transparency norms.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

  1. Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar [2018] 2 SCR 572
  2. Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh (2002) 1 SCC 160
  3. Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra (1954) 2 SCC 32

Important Statutes Referred:

  1. Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  3. Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp