FALSE INFORMATION REGARDING QUALIFICATION FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 123 (4) REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT

The Delhi High Court held that a false declaration made concerning education or qualification by a candidate standing for elections could be brought within the scope of Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. As the expression "in relation to candidature" in the Section includes the information regarding the education or qualification of a candidate.

Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 relates to the publication of false information by a candidate: "The publication by a candidate or by any other person, with the consent of a candidate, of any statement which is false, and which he does not believe to be true, about the personal character or conduct of any candidate or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement well calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election."

The Court was hearing an election petition by Yogender Chandolia, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party's Vishesh Ravi from Karol Bagh Constituency in the 2020 February Delhi assembly elections. 

He argued that Ravi from AAP was elected on February 8, 2020, Karol Bagh; however, his candidature should be announced null and void since he had given false information in his Form 26 regarding his education/qualification and that he also failed to reveal that a First Information Report (FIR) pending against him. The respondent, Ravi, filed an application stating that the petition did not disclose any cause of action, therefore, be rejected without trial. 

The Court cited the Top Court judgment in the cases of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People's Union for Civil Liberties - "a candidate who files his nomination for election is required to reveal his educational and qualification as well as his past convictions which include fines, imprisonment, acquittals, and release."

Justice Shakdher further held that the material concerning changing claims of educational qualification by the respondent, the election petition, cannot be rejected just because the May 2002 Academic Examination Result for Class X concerning the MLA does not match the assertion made in the petition. Therefore, the matter needs to be tried. 

The Court did not reject the petition but dismissed it, directing the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit in the prescribed form.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal