New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday said the alleged "omission" by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis of not disclosing information about two criminal cases in his election affidavit in 2014 assembly polls may be decided in the trial.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, reserved verdict on an appeal filed by one Satish Ukey seeking prosecution of Fadanvis under the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act for failing to furnish details of two pending criminal cases, in which the trial court had taken cognizance, in his election affidavit.
The bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, said, "We are concerned with a limited issue whether prima facie Section 125A of the RP Act is attracted or not".
The provision deals with the penalty for "filing false affidavit" and says that if a candidate or his proposer fails to furnish or gives false or conceals any information in his nomination paper on issues like pending criminal cases then the person would may be awarded six months jail term or fine or both.
"You had the window, you could have disclosed the cases where the court has taken congnizance (of the offence). Whether the omission is liable under section 125A of the RP Act may be decided in trial," the bench said, adding, though Fadanvis had disclosed the details of cases in which charges have been framed by the trial courts.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the chief minister, referred to the provision of the RP Act and said that the stage of cancellation of nomination papers for alleged concealment of information was over and the question was only whether the lawmaker can be prosecuted.
He said the Bombay High Court rightly rejected the plea.
The bench said that the "long and short of the matter is that you had to disclose the pending cases where charges have been framed. You did it. But you missed out in giving details of two cases (where court has taken cognizance).
"How do you deal with section 125A on the count of concealment," the bench asked Rohatgi.
Rohatgi said that yet no offence has been made out for prosecution of the chief minister.
Senior advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for Ukey, said that the chief minister filed a false affidavit by not disclosing the two criminal matters and yet the trial court and the High Court held that there no prima facie was made out for the prosecution of the chief minister.
He said that a candidate was under the mandatory legal obligation to disclose the details of all the cases, in which either charges have been framed or the trial court had taken cognizance, in the nomination papers.
Earlier, the court had fixed the plea of Ukey for final disposal seeking criminal prosecution of Fadnavis for alleged non-disclosure of pending criminal cases against him in the nomination papers.
It had issued the notice to the chief minister on the appeal against a Bombay High Court order which had dismissed his plea challenging the election of Fadnavis.
The petitioner had alleged that Fadnavis, in his election affidavit filed in 2014, had failed to disclose the pendency of two criminal cases against him.
It was contended that the chief minister did not disclose the information as required of him under the election law and the non-disclosure of these two pending criminal cases was in violation of Section 125A of the RP Act and constituted an offence in itself.
The two cases of alleged cheating and forgery were filed against Fadnavis in 1996 and 1998 but charges were not framed.
