# SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2019] 15 S.C.R. 524
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-10-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ranjan Gogoi, Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/satish-ukey-v-devendra-gangadharrao-fadnavis-and-anr-33395
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 1951:
ss. 33A and 125A - Rules 4A r/w Form 26 of Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 - Criminal complaint against MLA - Alleging
infraction of the provision u/s 125-A as the MLA had not mentioned
in Form 26 two criminal cases in which cognizance was taken
against him - Complaint dismissed by trial court - Order affirmed
by High Court - Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: Form 26
mandates disclosure of information by the contesting candidate of
not only case(s) in which charges have been framed but also case(s)
in which cognizance has been taken by the Court - Certain Letters
written by Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral
Officers of all the States and UTs also show that contesting
candidate is mandated to furnish information with regard to cases
in which cognizance is taken and that any fake declaration or
concealment in the affidavit prescribed in Form 26 as required
u/s. 33-A(2), will attract the provision of s. 125-A - Cumulative
reading of ss. 33-A and r. 4A and Form 26 alongwith the letters
from the Election Commissioner, makes it clear that information to
be furnished u/s. 33-A includes not only information contained in
clauses (i) and (ii) of s. 33-A (1), but also the information made
under the Act or the rules made thereunder and such information
should be furnished in Form 26 - As per the averment in the
complaint, the criminal cases were deliberately not mentioned in
Form 26 - Hence, orders of courts below dismissing the complaint
is not tenable - Complaint to be considered afresh by trial court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Consequent to the directions issued in
*Association for Democratic Reforms case, Section 33-A was
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 524
524
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
inserted into Representation of the People Act, 1951 vide the
Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002.
Section 33-A(1), as worded and drafted, required furnishing of
the information of cases where (i) the person filing the
nomination has been convicted; and (ii) where charges have been
framed against the person filing the nomination but excluded
cases where cognizance had been taken. This was despite the
order of this Court, to the effect that details of case(s) of which
cognizance has been taken should also be furnished. [Paras 8
and 9] [531-A-G-H]
People's Union for civil Liberties (PUCL) and Ors. v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 399 :
[2003] 3 SCR 75 ; *Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. (2002)
5 SCC 294 : [2002] 3 SCR 696 - relied on.
2. Whether the provisions of Section 125-A of the 1951
Act would be applicable in the present case, to make the first
respondent liable in law, would require the Court to decide on
the true meaning and purport of the following phrases found in
Section 125-A of the 1951 Act i.e. (a) fails to furnish information
relating to sub-section (1) of Section 33-A; (b) conceals any
information; (c) in his nomination paper delivered under subsection (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to
be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33-A. To find out
the true meaning and purport of the aforesaid phrases, the crucial
question that has to be answered is whether the word
'information' as mentioned in Section 33-A of the 1951 Act
means only such information as mentioned in clause (i) and (ii)
of Section 33-A(1) or whether along with the said information a
candidate is also required to furnish such other information as
required under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The
consequential question that would arise is whether in the
affidavit required to be filed under sub-section (2) of Section 33A information is to be given as required in terms of the affidavit
which is prescribed by Form-26 of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961 or such information is confined to what is required to be
submitted under Section 33-A (1) (i) and (ii). [Paras 12 and 13]
[535-C-G]
3. Rule 4-A of 1961 Rules

## Text

_Characters 0–39,971 of 49,790. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39971 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
SATISH UKEY
v.
DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2019)
OCTOBER 01, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., DEEPAK GUPTA AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951:
ss. 33A and 125A - Rules 4A r/w Form 26 of Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 - Criminal complaint against MLA - Alleging
infraction of the provision u/s 125-A as the MLA had not mentioned
in Form 26 two criminal cases in which cognizance was taken
against him - Complaint dismissed by trial court - Order affirmed
by High Court - Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: Form 26
mandates disclosure of information by the contesting candidate of
not only case(s) in which charges have been framed but also case(s)
in which cognizance has been taken by the Court - Certain Letters
written by Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral
Officers of all the States and UTs also show that contesting
candidate is mandated to furnish information with regard to cases
in which cognizance is taken and that any fake declaration or
concealment in the affidavit prescribed in Form 26 as required
u/s. 33-A(2), will attract the provision of s. 125-A - Cumulative
reading of ss. 33-A and r. 4A and Form 26 alongwith the letters
from the Election Commissioner, makes it clear that information to
be furnished u/s. 33-A includes not only information contained in
clauses (i) and (ii) of s. 33-A (1), but also the information made
under the Act or the rules made thereunder and such information
should be furnished in Form 26 - As per the averment in the
complaint, the criminal cases were deliberately not mentioned in
Form 26 - Hence, orders of courts below dismissing the complaint
is not tenable - Complaint to be considered afresh by trial court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Consequent to the directions issued in
*Association for Democratic Reforms case, Section 33-A was
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 524
524
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
inserted into Representation of the People Act, 1951 vide the
Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002.
Section 33-A(1), as worded and drafted, required furnishing of
the information of cases where (i) the person filing the
nomination has been convicted; and (ii) where charges have been
framed against the person filing the nomination but excluded
cases where cognizance had been taken. This was despite the
order of this Court, to the effect that details of case(s) of which
cognizance has been taken should also be furnished. [Paras 8
and 9] [531-A-G-H]
People's Union for civil Liberties (PUCL) and Ors. v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 399 :
[2003] 3 SCR 75 ; *Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. (2002)
5 SCC 294 : [2002] 3 SCR 696 - relied on.
2. Whether the provisions of Section 125-A of the 1951
Act would be applicable in the present case, to make the first
respondent liable in law, would require the Court to decide on
the true meaning and purport of the following phrases found in
Section 125-A of the 1951 Act i.e. (a) fails to furnish information
relating to sub-section (1) of Section 33-A; (b) conceals any
information; (c) in his nomination paper delivered under subsection (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to
be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33-A. To find out
the true meaning and purport of the aforesaid phrases, the crucial
question that has to be answered is whether the word
'information' as mentioned in Section 33-A of the 1951 Act
means only such information as mentioned in clause (i) and (ii)
of Section 33-A(1) or whether along with the said information a
candidate is also required to furnish such other information as
required under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The
consequential question that would arise is whether in the
affidavit required to be filed under sub-section (2) of Section 33A information is to be given as required in terms of the affidavit
which is prescribed by Form-26 of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961 or such information is confined to what is required to be
submitted under Section 33-A (1) (i) and (ii). [Paras 12 and 13]
[535-C-G]
3. Rule 4-A of 1961 Rules which was inserted by
S.O.935(E), dated 3.9.2002 with effect from 3.9.2002 provides
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
for form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination
paper. Form 26 is the prescribed form of affidavit to be filed by
a candidate along with his nomination papers as required under
Section 33-A (2) of the 1951 Act. [Paras 13 and 14] [535-G; 536B]
4. Form-26 was substituted by S.O. 1732 (E) dated
1.8.2012 with effect from 1.8.2012. A bare perusal of Form-26
makes it abundantly clear that, for offences punishable with
imprisonment for two years or more, while entry (5)(i) mandates
disclosure of information by the contesting candidate regarding
the case(s) that is/are pending against him in which charges have
been framed by the Court; entry (5)(ii) mandates disclosure of
information by the contesting candidate regarding cases that are
pending against him in which cognizance has been taken by the
Court. Entry 5(ii) specifically mentions that the candidate is
required to provide information of the case(s) pending in which
cognizance has been taken. This is in addition to the information
he is required to provide against the column in Entry 5(i) as the
words 'Other than the cases mentioned in item (i) above are
specifically used in Entry 5(ii). This would leave no element of
doubt that, subsequent to the substitution of Form 26 in 2012,
the new Form 26 (as in vogue at the time of the elections in
2014), mandates the disclosure of information by the contesting
candidate of not only case(s) in which charges have been framed
but also case(s) in which cognizance has been taken by the Court.
[Paras 15, 16 and 17] [544-C-F]
5. The position is made further clear by the letters dated
24.8.2012, 26.9.2012 and 26.4.2014 written by the Election
Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer of all the
States and the Union Territories. A reading of the said letters
would go to show that a contesting candidate is mandated to
furnish information concerning the cases in which a Competent
Court has taken cognizance along with the cases in which
charges have been framed. The said letters also make it clear
that the affidavit mentioned in Section 33-A(2) of the 1951 Act
is prescribed in Form-26 and that any false declaration or
concealment of information in the said affidavit will attract the
provisions of Section 125-A of the 1951 Act. [Para 18] [544-GH; 545-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
6. A cumulative reading of Section 33-A of the 1951 Act
and Rule 4-A of the 1961 Rules and Form-26 along with the
letters of Election Commission dated 24.8.2012, 26.9.2012 and
26.4.2014, make it amply clear that the information to be
furnished under Section 33-A of the 1951 Act includes not only
information mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 33-A(1),
but also information, that the candidate is required to furnish,
under the Act or the Rules made thereunder and such
information should be furnished in Form 26, which includes
information concerning cases in which a competent Court has
taken cognizance (Entry 5(ii) of Form 26). This is apart from
and in addition to cases in which charges have been framed for
an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more
or cases in which conviction has been recorded and sentence
of imprisonment for a period of one year or more has been
imposed (Entries 5(i) and 6 of Form 26 respectively). [Para 19]
[547-D-F]
7. Therefore, in view of the fact that clear averment was
made in the complaint to the effect that the First Respondent
had knowledge of the two cases against him which had not been
mentioned in the affidavit filed by the First Respondent
alongwith his nomination papers, the order of the trial Court
upheld by the High Court is legally not tenable and the same
deserves to be set aside. The complaint of the appellant will
be considered afresh by the trial Court from the stage where it
was interdicted. [Para 20] [547-F-H]
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others (2015) 3
SCC 467 : [2015] 4 SCR 987 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2002] 3 SCR 696
relied on.
Para 7
[2003] 3 SCR 75
relied on.
Para 10
[2015] 4 SCR 987
relied on.
Para 21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1515-1516 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Criminal
Revision Application No. 94 of 2016 and Criminal Application (APPR)
No. 101 of 2018.
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Vivek Tankha, Mukul Rohatgi, Sunil Manohar, Sanjay Parikh,
Sr. Advs., Vaibhav Srivastava, Akshay C. Srivastava, Prashant
Sivaragan, Pranav Gupta, Shashi Bhushan Wahane, Sanjay Patil, Balraj
Dewan, Satish Veke, Sameer Rohatgi, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Sidharth
Dharmadhikari, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Anoop Kandari,
Abhimanue Shrestha, Ms. Sanjana Srikumar, Ritwik Parikh, Jatinderpal
Singh, Ms. Rani Mishra, Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant- Satish Ukey is a practicing Advocate of the
Bombay High Court. The first respondent is an elected member of the
Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and is presently holding the
post of Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra.
3. The appellant had filed a criminal complaint before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for registration of a case against
the first respondent under Section 125-A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1951 Act"). The
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur by order dated 7th
September, 2015 dismissed the complaint. In Revision, the learned
Sessions Judge, Nagpur remanded the matter to the learned trial Court
for a de novo consideration. Aggrieved, the first respondent moved
the High Court and the High Court having set aside the order of the
learned Sessions Judge by its judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2018,
the present appeals have been filed.
4. The complaint filed by the appellant contains an allegation that
in the affidavit in Form-26, prescribed by the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Rules"), which had
accompanied the nomination papers of the first respondent details of
two cases in which cognizance was taken i.e. (i) Summary Case No.231
of 1996 (under Section 500 of IPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Nagpur; and (ii) Regular Criminal Case No.343 of 2003 (Old
No.125 of 1998) (under Sections 468, 471, 218, 467, 420 and 34 of IPC)
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur have not
been mentioned by the first respondent despite knowledge of the same.
Consequently, according to the appellant - complainant, an infraction
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
of the provisions of Section 125-A has been committed for which the
first respondent is liable to be prosecuted in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
On the very same allegations the appellant had challenged the
election of the first respondent before the High Court by instituting
Election Petition No.1 of 2014 which has been dismissed by the High
Court by its order dated 19th August, 2015.
5. To determine the correctness of the stand taken by the
appellant - complainant and the legality of the impugned order of the
High Court holding that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, the Court
would be required to consider the provisions of Sections 33-A and 125A of the 1951 Act, Rule 4A of the 1961 Rules read with Form-26
prescribed under the said Rules. Several letters of the Election
Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States
and the Union Territories issued in this regard would also require a close
look.
6. Before setting out the relevant provisions of the law
enumerated above, a brief prologue on the judicial precedents that had
led to the insertion of Sections 33-A and 125-A in the 1951 Act and
the provisions of Rule 4-A of the 1961 Rules read with Form-26 is
considered necessary.
7. In Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Association for
Democratic Reforms and Ors.1 this Court while examining the issue
of the Voters right to know relevant particulars of the contesting
candidates before they are called upon to cast their votes had made
the following observations :
"22. For health of democracy and fair election, whether the
disclosure of assets by a candidate, his/her qualification and
particulars regarding involvement in criminal cases are necessary
for informing voters, may be illiterate, so that they can decide
intelligently, whom to vote? In our opinion, the decision of even
illiterate voter, if properly educated and informed about the
contesting candidate, would be based on his own relevant criteria
of selecting a candidate. In democracy, periodical elections are
conducted for having efficient governance for the country and
for the benefit of citizens - voters. In a democratic form of
1 (2002) 5 SCC 294
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
government, voters are of utmost importance. They have right
to elect or re-elect on the basis of the antecedents and past
performance of the candidate. He has choice of deciding whether
holding of educational qualification or holding of property is
relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his
representative. Voter has to decide whether he should cast vote
in favour of a candidate who is involved in criminal case. For
maintaining purity of elections and healthy democracy, voters are
required to be educated and well informed about the contesting
candidates. Such information would include assets held by the
candidate, his qualification including educational qualification and
antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a
criminal case and if the case is decided-its result, if pendingwhether charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the Court?
There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the
voters.
[underlining is ours]"
Further, this Court issued the following directions to the Election
Commission (para 48, pg. 322):
"48. The Election Commission is directed to call for information
on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power
under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate
seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a
necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein,
information on the following aspects in relation to his/her
candidature:-
(1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/ discharged
of any criminal offence in the past-if any, whether he is
punished with imprisonment or fine?
(2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the
candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence
punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and
in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the
Court of law. If so, the details thereof.
[underlining is ours]"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
8. Consequent to the above and the directions issued in
Association for Democratic Reforms (Supra), Section 33-A was
inserted into the 1951 Act vide the 'Representation of the People (Third
Amendment) Act, 2002' (Section 2 of the Act 72 of 2002).
9. The new Section 33-A, which is the bone of contention in the
present case, deals with the 'Right to Information' and reads as under:
"33A. Right to information.-(1) A candidate shall, apart from
any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act
or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered
under sub-section (1) of section 33, also furnish the information
as to whether -
(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment
for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge
has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction;
(ii) he has been convicted of an offence other than any
offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section(2), or
covered in sub-section (3), of section 8 and sentenced to
imprisonment for one year or more.
(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at
the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper
under sub-section (1) of section 33, also deliver to him an
affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form verifying
the information specified in sub-section (1).
(3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the
furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1),display the
aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered
under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for
the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which
the nomination paper is delivered.
[underlining is ours]"
It is pertinent to note here that Section 33-A(1), as worded and
drafted, required furnishing of the information of cases where (i) the
person filing the nomination has been convicted; and (ii) where charges
have been framed against the person filing the nomination but excluded
cases where cognizance had been taken. This was despite the order
of this Court, noticed above, to the effect that details of case(s) of
which cognizance has been taken should also be furnished.
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
10. The aforesaid discrepancy was addressed by this Court, in
the case of People's Union for civil Liberties (PUCL) and Ors.
v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.2 In the said case, this Court had
examined the import of Sections 33-A and 33-B3 of the 1951 Act [as
inserted in the 1951 Act through the amendment in 2002 (Supra)] visà-vis the directions issued by this Court in the case of Association for
Democratic Reforms (Supra) and held as under (opinion of M.B. Shah,
J. is quoted. The opinion of P. Venkatarama Reddi and D.M.
Dharmadhikari, JJ. on the point is one of concurrence):
"114. I shall now discuss the specifics of the problem. With a
view to promote the right to information, this Court gave certain
directives to the Election Commission which, as I have already
clarified, were ad hoc in nature. The Election Commission was
directed to call for details from the contesting candidates broadly
on three points, namely, (i) criminal record, (ii) assets and
liabilities, and (iii) educational qualification. The Third Amendment
to the RP Act which was preceded by an ordinance provided
for disclosure of information. How far the Third Amendment to
the Representation of the People Act, 2002 safeguards the right
of information which is a part of the guaranteed right under Article
19(1)(a), is the question to be considered now with specific
reference to each of the three points spelt out in the judgment
of this Court in Assn. for Democratic Reforms case.
115. As regards the first aspect, namely, criminal record, the
directives in Assn. for Democratic Reforms case are twofold:
(SCC p. 322, para 48)
"(1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of
any criminal offence in the past - if any, whether he is punished
with imprisonment or fine.
2 (2003) 4 SCC 399
3 Section 33-B was also added through the 2002 Amendment. It stated that
notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment of any Court, or any instruction
issued by the Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose information
not required by the Act or rules made thereunder.
Section 33-B was declared unconstitutional in People's Union of Civil Liberties
v. Union of India and Ors. ((2003) 4 SCC 399) as violating the fundamental right of
citizens to know the antecedents of candidates contesting in the elections, which right
was held to be an essential facet of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which could only be validly limited through the
restrictions conforming with Article. 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
(2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the
candidate is an accused in any pending case, of any offence
punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which
charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court of law."
As regards the second directive, Parliament has substantially
proceeded on the same lines and made it obligatory for the
candidate to furnish information as to whether he is accused of
any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more
in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the
competent court. However, the case in which cognizance has
been taken but charge has not been framed is not covered by
clause (i) of Section 33-A(I). Parliament having taken the right
step of compelling disclosure of the pendency of cases relating
to major offences, there is no good reason why it failed to provide
for the disclosure of the cases of the same nature of which
cognizance has been taken by the Court. It is common
knowledge that on account of a variety of reasons such as the
delaying tactics of one or the other accused and inadequacies
of the prosecuting machinery, framing of formal charges gets
delayed considerably, especially in serious cases where committal
procedure has to be gone through. On that account, the voter/
citizen shall not be denied information regarding cognizance taken
by the Court of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two
years or more. The citizen's right to information, when once it is
recognized to be part of the fundamental right under Article
19(1)(a), cannot be truncated in the manner in which it has been
done. Clause (i) of Section 33-A(I) therefore falls short of the
avowed goal to effectuate the right of information on a vital
aspect. Cases in which cognizance has been taken should
therefore be comprehended within the area of information
accessible to the voters/citizens, in addition to what is provided
for in clause (i) of Section 33-A.
[underlining is ours]"
Further, the Court held:
"123. Finally, the summary of my conclusions:
(1) .....
(2) ....
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(3) The directives given by this Court in Union of India v. Assn.
for Democratic Reforms were intended to operate only till the
law was made by the legislature and in that sense "pro tempore"
in nature. Once legislation is made, the Court has to make an
independent assessment in order to evaluate whether the items
of information statutorily ordained are reasonably adequate to
secure the right of information available to the voter/citizen. In
embarking on this exercise, the points of disclosure indicated by
this Court, even if they be tentative or ad hoc in nature, should
be given due weight and substantial departure therefrom cannot
be countenanced.
...
 (6) The right to information provided for by Parliament under
Section 33-A in regard to the pending criminal cases and past
involvement in such cases is reasonably adequate to safeguard
the right to information vested in the voter/citizen. However, there
is no good reason for excluding the pending cases in which
cognizance has been taken by the Court from the ambit of
disclosure.
[underlining is ours]"
Eventually, the following direction was issued by the Court to the
Election Commission of India:
"123 (9) The Election Commission has to issue revised
instructions to ensure implementation of Section 33-A subject to
what is laid down in this judgment regarding the cases in which
cognizance has been taken...."
11. Section 125-A of the 1951 Act [Inserted by Section 5 of the
Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002' (Act 72
of 2002)] reads as under:
"Section 125-A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.- A
candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be
elected in an election,-
(i) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of
section 33-A; or
(ii) gives false information which he knows or has reason to
believe to be false; or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
(iii) conceals any information, in his nomination paper delivered
under sub-section (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which
is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of section
33-A, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine, or with both"
12. Whether the provisions of Section 125-A of the 1951 Act
would be applicable in the present case, as claimed by the appellant -
complainant, to make the first respondent liable in law, would require
the Court to decide on the true meaning and purport of the following
phrases found in Section 125-A of the 1951 Act.
(a) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1)
of Section 33-A;
(b) conceals any information;
(c) in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1)
of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to be
delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33-A.
13. To find out the true meaning and purport of the aforesaid
phrases, the crucial question that has to be answered is whether the
word 'information' as mentioned in Section 33-A of the 1951 Act means
only such information as mentioned in clause (i) and (ii) of Section 33A(1) or whether along with the said information a candidate is also
required to furnish such other information as required under the Act or
the Rules made thereunder. The consequential question that would arise
is whether in the affidavit required to be filed under sub-section (2) of
Section 33-A information is to be given as required in terms of the
affidavit which is prescribed by Form-26 of the 1961 Rules or such
information is confined to what is required to be submitted under Section
33-A (1) (i) and (ii). It is at this stage that Rule 4-A of the 1961 Rules
would require to be noticed. Rule 4-A which was inserted by
S.O.935(E), dated 3.9.2002 with effect from 3.9.2002 is in the following
terms.
"4-A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering
nomination paper.- The candidate or his proposer, as the case
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer
the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the
Act, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate
before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26."
14. Form 26 is the prescribed form of affidavit to be filed by a
candidate along with his nomination papers as required under Section
33-A (2) of the 1951 Act. The said affidavit in the prescribed form
reads as hereunder:
" [FORM 26
(See Rule 4-A)
Please affix your recent
passport size photograph
here
Affidavit to be filed by the candidate along with nomination
paper before the returning officer for election to
........................................ .(name of the House) from
................................ constituency (Name of the constituency)
PART A
I ........................................, **son/daughter/wife of
........................................ Aged ............. years, resident of
........................................ (mention full postal address), a
candidate at the above election, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state on oath as under-
(1) I am a candidate set up by ........................................
(**name of the political party)/**am contesting as an Independent
candidate.
(**Strike out whichever is not applicable)
(2) My name is enrolled in ........................................ (Name
of the constituency and the State), at Serial No. ......................
in Part No. ............................
[(3) My contact telephone number(s) is/are ................................
and my E-mail ID (if any) is ..................................................
 [(4) Details of Permanent Account Number (PAN) and status
of filing of income tax return:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
Sl.
No.
Names
PAN
The financial year for
which the last
income-tax return has
been filed.
Total income shown
in income tax return
(in Rupees)
1.
Self
2
Spouse
3.
Dependent-1
4.
Dependent-2
5.
Dependent-3
5. I am/am not accused of any offence(s) punishable with
imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case(s) in which
a charge(s) has/have been framed by the court(s) of competent
jurisdiction.
If the deponent is accused of any such offence(s) he shall furnish
the following information-
(i) The following case(s) is/are pending against me in which
charges have been framed by the court for an offence
punishable with imprisonment for two years or more-
(a)
Case/First Information
Report No./Nos. together
with complete details of
concerned Police
Station/District/State
(b)
Section(s) of the concerned
Act(s) and short description
of the offence(s) for which
charged
(c)
Name of the Court, Case
No. and date of Order
taking cognizance:
(d)
Court(s) which framed the
charge(s)
(e)
Date(s) on which the
charge(s) was/were framed
(f)
Whether all or any of the
proceeding(s) have been
stayed by any Court(s) of
competent jurisdiction
(ii) The following case(s) is/are pending against me in which
cognizance has been taken by the Court(other than the cases
mentioned in item (i) above.
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(a)
Name of the Court, Case No. and
date of order taking cognizance:
(b)
The details of cases where the Court
has taken cognizance, section (s) of
the Act(s) and description of the
offence(s) for which cognizance
taken
(c)
Details of Appeal(s)/Application(s)
for revision (if any) filed against the
above order(s)
 (6) I have been/have not been convicted of an offences(s) other
than any offence(s) referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2), or covered in sub-section (3), of Section 8 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) and
sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.
If the deponent is convicted and punished as aforesaid, he shall
furnish the following information:
In the following cases, I have been convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment by a court of law:-
(a)
The
details
of
cases,
Section(s) of the concerned
Act (s) and description of
the offence(s) for which
convicted.
(b)
Name of the court(s), Case
No. and date(s) of order(s)
(c)
Punishment imposed.

(d)
Whether
any
appeal
was/has been filed against
the conviction order. If so,
details
and
the
present
status of the appeal.
 (7) That I give hereinbelow the details of the assets (movable
and immovable etc.) of myself, my spouse and all dependents:
A. Details of movable assets:
Note:1. Assets in joint name indicating the extent of joint
ownership will also have to be given
Note:2. In case of deposit/investment, the details including serial
number, amount, date of deposit, the scheme, name of the Bank/
Institution and Branch are to be given.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
Note:3. Value of Bonds/Share Debentures as per current market
value in Stock exchange in respect of listed companies and as
per books in case of non-listed companies should be given.
Note:4. Dependent here has the same meaning as assigned in
Explanation (v) under Section 75-A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951.
Note:5: Details including amount is to be given separately in
respect of each investment.
Sl. No.
Description
Self
Spouse Dependent1
Dependent2
Dependent3
(i)
Cash in hand
(ii)
Details of deposit in Bank accounts
(FDRs, Term Deposits and all other
types of deposits including saving
accounts), Deposits with Financial
Institutions, Non-Banking Financial
Companies
and
Cooperative
societies and the amount in each
such deposit
(iii) Details of investment in Bonds,
debentures/shares
and
units
in
companies/Mutual funds and others
and the amount
(iv) Details of investment in NSS, Postal
Saving, Insurance
policies and
investment
in
any
Financial
instruments in Post Office or
Insurance Company and the amount
(v)
Personal loans/advance given to any
person or entity including firm,
company, Trust etc., and other
receivables from debtors and the
amount
(vi) Motor
Vehicles/Aircrafts/Yachts/Ships
(Details
of
Make,
registration
number etc. year of purchase and
amount)
(vii) Jewellery, bullion and valuable
thing(s) (give details of weight and
value)
(viii) Any other assets such as value of
claims/interest
(ix) Gross Total Value
 B. Details of Immovable Assets:
Note: 1. Properties in joint ownership indicating the extent of joint
ownership will also have to be indicated.
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Note: 2. Each land or building or apartment should be mentioned
separately in this format.
Sl.
No.
Description
Self Spouse Dependent-1 Dependent-2 Dependent-3
Agricultural Land Location(s)
Survey number(s)
Area (total measurement in acres)
Whether inherited property (Yes or
No)
Date of Purchase in case of selfacquired property
Cost of Land (in case of purchase) at
the time of purchase
Any investment on the land by way of
development, construction etc.
(i)
Approximate current market value
Non-Agricultural Land:
Location(s)
Survey number(s)
Area (total measurement in sq. ft.)
Whether inherited property (Yes or
No)
Date of Purchase in case of selfacquired property
Cost of Land (in case of purchase) at
the time of purchase
Any investment on the land by way of
development, construction etc.
(ii)
Approximate current market value
Commercial
Buildings
(including
apartments)
-Location(s)
-Survey number(s)
Area (total measurement in sq.ft.)
Built-up Area (total measurement in
sq.ft.)
Whether inherited property (Yes or
No)
Date of purchase in case of selfacquired property
Cost of property (in case of purchase)
at the time of purchase
Any investment on the property by
way of development, construction etc.
(iii)
Approximate current market value
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
(8) I give herein below the details of liabilities/dues to public
financial institutions and government-
(Note.-Please give separate details of name of bank, institutions,
entity or individual and amount before each item)
Residential
Buildings
(including
apartments):
-Location(s)
-Survey number(s)
Area (total measurement in sq.ft.)
Built-up area (total measurement in
sq.ft.)
Whether inherited property (Yes or No)
Date of purchase in case of self-acquired
property
Cost of property (in case of purchase) at
the time of purchase
Any investment on the land by way of
development, construction etc.
(iv)
Appropriate current market value
(v) Others (such as interest in property)
(vi) Total of current market value of (i) to (v)
above
Sl. No.
Description
Self
Spouse
Dependent1
Dependent2
Dependent3
Loan
or
dues
to
Bank/financial
institution(s)
Name
of the Bank
or
financial
institution,
Amount
outstanding,
Nature of Loan
Loan or dues to any other
individuals/entity
other
than
mentioned
above
Name(s),
Amount
outstanding,
nature
of
loan
Any other liability
(i)
Grand total of liabilities
(ii)
Government Dues
Dues to departments
dealing with government
accommodation

Dues to department
dealing with supply of
water

Dues to department
dealing with supply of
electricity

Dues to department
dealing with supply of
telephones/mobiles

Dues to department
dealing with government
transport (including
aircrafts and helicopters)
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(9) Details of profession or occupation:
(a) Self .........................................................
(b) Spouse .........................................................
 (10) My educational qualification is as under-
...................................................................................
(Give details of highest School/University education mentioning
the full form of the certificate/diploma/degree course, name of
the School/College/University and the year in which the course
was completed.)
PART B
(11) Abstract of the details given in (1) to (10) of Part A:

Income Tax dues

Wealth tax dues

Service tax dues

Municipal/Property tax dues

Sales tax dues

Any other dues

(iii)
Grand total of all Government dues

(iv)
Whether any other liabilities are in
dispute, if so, mention the amount
involved and the authority before which it
is pending
1.
Name of the candidate
Sh./Smt./Kum.
2.
Full postal address
3.
Number and name of the constituency and State
4.
Name of the political party which set up the candidate
(otherwise write 'Independent')
5.
(I) Total number of pending cases where charges have
been framed by the court for offences punishable with
imprisonment for two years or more
(ii) Total number of pending cases where the court(s)
have taken cognizance (other than the cases mentioned
in item (i) above
6.
Total number of cases in which convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more except
for offences referred to in sub-sections(1), (2) or (3) of
Section 8 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
7.
PAN of
Year for which
last income tax
return filed
Total income shown
(a) Candidate
(b) Spouse
(d) Dependents]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent, abovenamed, do hereby verify and declare that
the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom. I further declare that-
(a) there is no case of conviction or pending case against me
other than those mentioned in Items 5 and 6 of Part A and B
above;
(b) I, my spouse, or my dependents do not have any asset or
liability, other than those mentioned in Items 7 and 8 of Part A
and Items 8, 9 and 10 of Part B above.
Verified at..............................this the.....................day
of.............................................
DEPONENT
Note: 1. Affidavit should be filed latest by 3.00 PM on the last
day of filing nominations.
8.
 [Details of Assets and Liabilities in rupees]
Description
Self Spouse
Dependent-I DependentII
DependentIII
A.
Movable Assets (Total Value)
B
Immovable Asset
I. Purchase
Price
of
self-acquired
immovable property
II. Development/Construction
cost
of
immovable property after purchase (if
applicable)
III. Approximate Current market price of-
(a) self-acquired assets (Total Value)
(b) inherited assets (Total Value)
Liabilities
(i) Government dues (Total)
9.
(ii) Loans from Bank, Financial Institutions
and others (Total)
10.
Liabilities that are under dispute
(i) Government dues (Total)
(ii) Loans from Bank, Financial Institutions
and others (Total)
11.
Highest educational qualification:
(Give details of highest School/University education mentioning the full form of the
certificate/diploma/degree course, name of the School/College/University and the year in which
the course was completed.)
SATISH UKEY v. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Note: 2. Affidavit should be sworn before an Oath Commissioner
or Magistrate of the First Class or before a Notary Public.
Note: 3. All column should be filled up and no column to be left
blank. If there is no information to furnish in respect of any item,
either "Nil" or "Not applicable", as the case may be, should be
mentioned.
Note: 4. The Affidavit should be either typed or written legibly
and neatly."
15. It may be noticed here that Form-26 was substituted by S.O.
1732 (E) dated 1.8.2012 with effect from 1.8.2012.
16.