SC allows probe against Devendra Fadnavis for non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in poll affidavit

Less than a month before the Maharashtra Assembly election, the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed an investigation into Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act for failing to disclose two criminal cases against him on his 2014 Assembly election affidavit. The apex court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi “unhesitatingly” set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and directed for the trial to proceed.

The petition, filed by a Satish Ukey, has sought the prosecution of Fadnavis under the RP Act for not furnishing details of two pending criminal cases of which a trial court had taken cognisance. On 23 July , the apex court, while reserving the verdict, had said that it was concerned with a limited issue whether or not prima facie Section 125A of the RP Act comes into play.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes just a few weeks ahead of the state Assembly polls, in which Fadnavis is seeking re-election as chief minister. Fadnavis stood for the election from the South-West Nagpur constituency.

The BJP and Shiv Sena confirmed their pre-poll alliance only on Monday, after a long-drawn negotiation over the seat-sharing arrangement in the state. The Times of India reported that the BJP will contest on 162 seats of the 288-member Assembly, while the Shiv Sena will field candidates in 126 constituencies.

The provision of the RP Act under which the petition seeks to prosecute Fadnavis deals with the penalty for “filing false affidavit” and says that if a candidate or his proposer fails to furnish or gives false or conceals any information in his nomination paper on issues like pending criminal cases then the person would may be awarded six months jail term or fine or both.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the chief minister, had referred to the provision of the RP Act and said that the stage of cancellation of nomination papers for alleged concealment of information was over and the question was only whether the lawmaker can be prosecuted.

He had argued that the Bombay High Court “rightly” rejected the plea.

The apex court had said that the “long and short of the matter is that you had to disclose the pending cases where charges have been framed. You did it. But you missed out in giving details of two cases (where court has taken cognisance).”

Ukey had contended that the chief minister filed a false affidavit by not disclosing the two criminal matters and yet the trial court and the high court held that there no prima facie case was made out for prosecution of the chief minister. He had said that a candidate was under mandatory legal obligation to disclose the details of all the cases, in which either charges have been framed or the trial court had taken cognisance, in the nomination papers.

It was contended that the chief minister did not disclose the information as required of him under the election law and the non-disclosure of these two pending criminal cases was in violation of Section 125A of the RP Act and constituted an offence in itself. The two cases of alleged cheating and forgery were filed against Fadnavis in 1996 and 1998, but charges were not framed.

With inputs from agencies