[S. 123 RP Act] Furnishing False information regarding education does not amount to 'corrupt practice': Allahabad High Court 

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a piece of false information regarding the educational qualification of an election candidate cannot be termed a 'corrupt practice' within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the RP Act).

The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh said that since the educational qualification of a candidate is not a vital and useful piece of information to the voter, therefore, any inconsistency or error in the affidavit of a candidate regarding educational qualification would not amount to corrupt practice.

"The anomalies regarding educational qualification shown in affidavit of respondent or to say even false information regarding education of the respondent, can hardly be termed as ‘corrupt practice’ within the meaning of sub section (2) or (4) of section 123 R.P. Act," the court said. 

One Anugrah Narayan Singh, who contested the 2017 State elections from the 262 Allahabad City North constituency against respondent Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee filed an election petition seeking respondent's election as MLA as null and void.

He alleged that along with concealing facts about pending electricity dues and housing loans, respondent Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee furnished false information regarding his educational qualifications as well during the election campaign. 

The petitioner submitted that during the campaign in the election, the respondent got printed pamphlets and handbills, in which he mentioned his name as Er. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee and posed himself as a qualified Engineer, whereas he did not hold a degree in Engineering, and thus, it amounted to 'corrupt practice' of undue influence under Sub-Section (2) or (4) of Section 123 of the RP Act.

He further alleged that in the election of the year 2012, the respondent had shown that he possessed an MBA degree which he did not hold. 

The petitioner's main contention was that since in the constituency in question most of the electors are well-educated and want to elect a well-educated person to represent them and thus, incorrect disclosure of educational qualification and non-disclosure of government dues would constitute 'corrupt practice' of undue influence.

During the pendency of the instant petition, the respondent moved an application seeking dismissal of the petition as infructuous as the Legislative Assembly in question came to be dissolved in the month of February/ March 2022 after the completion of the term of five years.

The petitioner, on the other hand, raised objections against that application and argued that since the respondent had committed corrupt practice within the meaning of sections 123(2) and 123(4) of the RP Act and thus, the petition must be proceeded further, as the respondent may entail several disqualifications including a bar for contesting an election for a period of six years.

The court opined that since the term of the disputed election had already expired and thereafter, a fresh election had taken place, therefore if the allegations made by the petitioner did not amount to any corrupt practice, then such an election petition could be dismissed.

Therefore, court narrowed down the question for consideration as to whether a case of corrupt practice was made out, as for other purposes the petition had been rendered infructuous.

Regarding the allegations of 'corrupt practice' of undue influence by the respondent, Court observed that the petitioner could not show any such unimpeachable and incontrovertible document that the respondent did not pass the said degree of B. Tech. from the alleged University.

Court held that the allegations made by the petitioner were vague and general as no specific details had been mentioned that when and where and in what manner the respondent represented himself as an educated Engineer or that the electors had voted in his favour due to that reason and thereby respondent employed corrupt practice of undue influence. 

"Considering all these facts of the matter, the inaccuracy or concealment regarding educational qualification of the respondent did not amount to unduly influencing the voters, as the defect in disclosure was not of substantial character that could have materially prejudiced the prospects of the election, for it to be termed as a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act," held the court. 

Furthermore, court referred to the Apex Court's ruling in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties V UOI and held that it cannot be said that any inconsistency or error in the affidavit of a candidate regarding his educational qualification would amount to corrupt practice.

Therefore, stating that "it is the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the time of the Court is a precious one and academic exercise is not warranted unless still some relief may be granted to petitioner may be followed "the court held that there was "no impediment or obstacle in dismissing the election petition, as the prayer itself had become infructuous".

Accordingly, court allowed the application moved by the respondent and dismissed the election petition as infructuous.

Case Title: Anugrah Narayan Singh v. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee