Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Thursday while segregating certain offences from ‘serious offences’ stated that the commission of an offence under IPC or special enactments like Prevention of Corruption Act or Arms Act may make you a criminal, but an offence under Kerala Police Act does not, as they do not create substantive offences. The matter was regarding a non-disclosure of criminal antecedents in nomination forms for election.

In the present matter the Top Court allowed an appeal, where appellant’s election to the Gram Panchayat as Councilor was held void by the Trial Court, and subsequently upheld by the High Court. It was alleged that the appellant did not disclose his past conviction and fine for holding a dharna in the nomination paper before the elections.

The amendment of 2005 to Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, mandated, disclosure of the details regarding educational qualification, criminal cases in which a person is involved at the time of submission of nomination. Therefore, “criminal cases in which he was involved at the time of submission” was relied upon by the appellant to challenge the High Court’s order. Moreover, the appellant had submitted that the conviction was for a petty offence and that too pertaining to a dharna on a political issue.

The Court after taking note of the offence, weighing the gravity and the Act that the offence fell in, opined, Just as strike is a weapon in the hands of the workmen and lockout is a weapon in the hands of the employer under Labour Welfare legislations, protest is a tool in the hands of the civil society and police action is a tool in the hands of the Establishment. All State enactments such as Kerala Police Act, Madras Police Act etc., are aimed at better regulation of the police force and they do not create substantive offences. This is why these Acts themselves empower the police to issue necessary directions for the maintenance of law and order and the violation of any of those directions is made a punishable offence under these Acts.

‘What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’, this principle should be kept in mind, while applying a blindfold rule, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian opined. “Kerala Police Act, 1960 is actually the successor legislation of certain police enactments of the colonial era, whose object was to scuttle the democratic aspirations of the indigenous population”, the bench further urged.

The Court was thus of the opinion that the High Court erred in declaring the election of appellant to be void on the ground of failure to disclose in Form 2A. As the conviction amounted to ‘undue influence on the free exercise of the electoral right’ and also a violation of Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1) (ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

Case Title: Ravi Namboothiri vs K.A. Baiju and others