MP High Court: Non-Disclosure Of Pending Criminal Case In Nomination Form Voids Election Win
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a candidate's later acquittal in a criminal case cannot cure his failure to disclose it as pending at the time of filing his nomination, upholding the setting aside of his panchayat election for suppression of material facts.
Acquittal After Election Doesn't Cure Nomination Suppression, Holds MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that failing to disclose a pending criminal case in a nomination form cannot be cured by a later acquittal, dismissing an appeal by a panchayat candidate whose election was set aside for suppressing material information.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, with the order authored by Justice Mittal, was hearing an appeal against a Single Judge order dated March 18, 2026, which had dismissed appellant Raj Mani Patel Mishri Lal's writ petition challenging the Election Tribunal's decision to void his election.
Patel had contested a panchayat election and secured 2,174 votes against 1,672 polled by respondent No. 3 Suresh Tripathi, winning by a margin of 502 votes. His nomination was accepted without objection at the scrutiny stage. However, respondent No. 3 later challenged the election under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging that Patel had suppressed information about pending criminal cases, cooperative bank dues, liability connected to a Jal Upbhogta Sansthan, and other financial and property details.
Patel argued before the High Court that he had already been acquitted in the criminal cases, cleared the alleged dues, and taken appropriate legal steps against action by the Mining Department. He also contended that the District Collector, acting as the Election Tribunal, had improperly delegated the statutory enquiry to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumana, and that the resulting report was prepared ex-parte, without notice to him or a copy being furnished.
The Court, however, was not persuaded. It noted that Rule 31-A of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 mandates disclosure of prescribed particulars, including pending criminal cases, and that Patel had admittedly mentioned "Nil" in Columns 11 and 12 of his nomination form despite Crime No. 373/2011 being pending against him on the date of filing, June 4, 2022. He was acquitted only on October 13, 2022, after the election was over.
"The subsequent acquittal does not cure the omission, as the relevant date for disclosure was the date of filing of the nomination," the bench observed, holding that the nomination was liable to be rejected at the threshold and its acceptance by the Returning Officer was improper.
The Court also took note of the Collector's findings that Criminal Case No. 10611/12 was pending against Patel before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumana, that a recovery order of Rs 13,55,146 had been issued against him by the Executive Engineer, and that a penalty of Rs 2,40,000 had been imposed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956, none of which were disclosed. "The deliberate suppression of material facts amounts to a serious violation of the disclosure requirements and constitutes a corrupt practice," the Court held.
Rejecting Patel's plea that his substantial victory margin should shield his election, the bench clarified that this principle applies only where a rival candidate's nomination was wrongly accepted, not where, as here, the returned candidate's own nomination was defective. "The number of votes secured by the appellant is of no consequence when the election is challenged on the ground of suppression of material facts," it said, distinguishing the precedent Patel had cited.
The Court rejected arguments on improper delegation and denial of natural justice, holding that the Collector had applied independent mind to the record and granted Patel a fair hearing.
Advocate Praveen Dubey appeared for the appellant, while Government Advocate Anubhav Jain represented the State and Advocate Bhagwan Singh Thakur appeared for respondent No. 3.
Affirming the orders of the Single Judge and the Election Tribunal, the bench held that "no perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality has been demonstrated warranting appellate interference," and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Raj Mani Patel Mishri Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Order Date: August 25, 2026
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal