Five years down the line and the case still raising its ugly head, Fadnavis argued that the non-disclosure, at best, could lead to rejection of his nomination but not a criminal offence
Tough questions greeted Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in Supreme Court over two pending criminal cases that he failed to mention in his election affidavit of 2014. Five years down the line and the case still raising its ugly head, Fadnavis argued that the non-disclosure, at best, could lead to rejection of his nomination but not a criminal offence. The bench reserved orders while dropping sufficient hints that Fadnavis may have to prove his innocence during trial.
In 2014, Fadnavis contested from the South-West constituency in Nagpur. He was required to disclose in his affidavit accompanying the nomination form, the details of criminal cases under Section 33A, both in which he stood convicted and those pending against him where a criminal court had taken cognizance.
After elections got over, a Mumbai-based lawyer Satish Ukey alleged that Fadnavis concealed information about two criminal cases were a trial judge had taken cognizsnce. These cases were – RCC No. 343 of 2003 (Madanlal Parate v Shashikant Hastak & Ors) involving forgery and RCC No. 231 of 1996 (Madanlal Parate v Devendra Fadnavis) involving an offence under criminal defamation. Though charges were not framed in both cases, Ukey claimed that since the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, took cognizance of the above cases, they ought to have been disclosed. By not doing so, Fadnavis was liable to face prosecution under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 as the same amounted to concealment and filing of false affidavit.
OLD CASES
|
- After elections got over, a Mumbai-based lawyer Satish Ukey alleged that Fadnavis concealed information about two criminal cases
- Though charges were not framed in both cases, Ukey claimed that since the court took cognizance of the above cases, they ought to have been disclosed
|
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said, "the question before us whether by missing out on two cases in the affidavit supporting your nomination, it will amount to an offence under Section 125A....How can concealment be overlook in either nomination form or affidavit."
Appearing for Fadnavis, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that every legislator faces hundreds of cases. Will it amount to a criminal offence if he misses out on two, he said, adding that at best, it could lead to rejection of nomination but not a criminal offence. The bench said, "if you have missed it unintentionally, you will be acquitted. All that will be determined in trial."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Devendra Fadnavis")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}