New twist to election petition against Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis in Supreme Court

In a fresh twist to the hearing on a petition challenging the election of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, the Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) which urged the Court to take a stern view against non-disclosure of criminal cases by lawmakers.

Fadnavis' election is under challenge by a Mumbai-based lawyer Satish Ukey on the ground that the Maharashtra CM had failed to disclose two criminal cases pending against him while filing his nomination for the 2014 Assembly polls.

ADR, which has pursued electoral reforms by filing successive public interest litigations (PIL) in Supreme Court, stated in its application that the presence of tainted lawmakers in Assemblies and Parliament is on the rise. In Maharashtra Assembly alone, out of 288 Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA), those facing criminal cases have increased from 132 (46%) in 2004 to 136 (52%) in 2009 and presently 162 (57%) in the current Assembly.

The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose agreed to hear the NGO's lawyer Kamini Jaiswal on July 23, when the petition against Fadnavis will be heard and decided finally.

The ADR sought to be added as a party to the proceedings against Fadnavis as well. But the Court refused saying, "We will hear what you have to say on the next date." The comparative chart prepared by ADR suggested that despite past efforts made by the Court to promote transparency in information about candidate's criminal cases, educational profile and assets, more criminal netas have made it to various state Assemblies and Parliament.

In the case of Lok Sabha, between 2004 and 2014, MPs facing criminal cases rose from 125 to 185. The percentage of increase was 48%. Among State Assemblies, 81-member strong Jharkhand Assembly showed the highest increase of 90% from 2005 to 2014, followed by Karnataka (224 MLAs) with an increase of 75 % (from 44 to 77 MLAs) during 2008-18, and Bihar (243 MLAs) with an increase of 45% (98 to 142 MLAs) between 2005 and 2015.

In this backdrop, the ADR claimed that when a MLA or MP fails to disclose criminal antecedents, it defeats the right of voters to know under Article 19(1)(a). In the case of Fadnavis, he allegedly did not disclose two criminal cases pertaining to forgery and criminal defamation. As the Magistrate had taken cognizance in the above two cases, Fadnavis was required to mention them in his affidavit attached to the nomination form, the petition challenging his election alleged.

The ADR application said that the Supreme Court on March 13, 2003 held that information about pending criminal cases where cognizance has been taken must be disclosed. Following this, the Election Commission amended the affidavit (Form 26) to be submitted by candidates by providing two sub-sections - pending criminal cases and cases of conviction.