The Supreme Court has held that mere breach of constitutional provisions does not invalidate an election and quashed Patna High Court's judgement disqualifying JD(U) MP Mangani Lal Mandal,for "suppressing" details about his two wives,children and their assets. A bench of justices R M Lodha and S J Mukhopadhaya said unless the complainant pleads specifically in the election petition the alleged suppression had materially affected the results of the poll,the elected representative cannot be disqualified. "A mere non-compliance or breach of the constitution or the statutory provisions noticed above,by itself,does not result in invalidating the election of a returned candidate under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). "The sine qua non for declaring election of a returned candidate to be void on the ground under clause(iv) of Section 100(1)(d) is further proof of the fact that such breach or non-observance has resulted in materially affecting the result of the returned candidate," Justice Lodha said. The high court had earlier quashed Mandal's election from Jhanjharpur Lok Sabha constituency held on April 23,2009,on the charge of violation of section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of Peoples Act. The MP was disqualified on an election petition filed by a voter Bishnu Deo Bhandari who alleged Mandal suppressed the facts in the nomination papers that he had two wives and the dependent children by marriage with his first wife. He did not disclose the assets and liabilities of his first wife and the dependent children born out of that wedlock. Interpreting the RPA,the apex court said that under Section 83 of the 1951 Act it is essential for the election petitioner to aver by pleading material facts that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been materially affected by such breach or non-observance. "If the election petition goes to trial,then the election petitioner has also to prove the charge of breach or non-compliance as well as establish that the result of the election has been materially affected. "It is only on the basis of such pleading and proof that the court may be in a position to form an opinion and record a finding that breach or non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or orders made thereunder has materially affected the result of the election before the election of the returned candidate could be declared void," the bench said. The apex court felt that instead of dismissing the election petition at the threshold,the high court had committed a grave error by disqualifying the Lok Sabha member causing him considerable inconvenience.
