The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar has answered a reference arising from an election petition by holding that a false declaration made by a candidate about his own educational qualification in the affidavit and Form 26 filed along with the nomination paper does not amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Bench ruled that Section 123(4) is attracted only when a candidate or his agent publishes a false statement of fact relating to the personal character or conduct of another candidate, with the intention of prejudicing that candidate’s electoral prospects. A self-declaration, even if false, cannot fall within the provision because a candidate cannot logically make a statement against himself to prejudice his own prospects, nor does the filing of a nomination affidavit constitute “publication” as contemplated by the section.
The petition filed by Yogender Chandolia challenged the election of Vishesh Ravi from Assembly Constituency-23, Karol Bagh in the 2020 Delhi Legislative Assembly elections, alleging that the returned candidate had furnished false and misleading information regarding his educational qualification (claiming Class 10th from NIOS in 2003) in the nomination papers for the 2013, 2015 and 2020 elections. The petitioner contended that such misrepresentation amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) and materially affected the election result. During hearing before the learned Single Judge, a doubt was expressed about the correctness of the coordinate bench decision in Nand Ram Bagri v. Jai Kishan (2013 SCC OnLine Del 1826), which had taken a contrary view, and the matter was referred for authoritative pronouncement. The Division Bench clarified that Nand Ram Bagri is distinguishable because the pleadings in that case invoked both Sections 123(2) and 123(4), whereas the present petition was confined only to Section 123(4). The Bench further observed that even the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laksmi & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723) has significantly narrowed the scope of interference on grounds of non-disclosure of educational qualifications, treating it as a supplementary requirement rather than a ground to nullify the people’s mandate over minor or technical non-compliances.
Emphasising the strict interpretation required in election law, the Court held that pleadings in an election petition must be specific and precise, and the High Court cannot travel beyond the pleaded grounds or suo motu invoke unpleaded provisions to unsettle a validly declared election. Since the term of the 2020 Assembly had expired and fresh elections were held in 2025, the petition was declared infructuous. The Bench also noted that even if the allegations were proved, they would not constitute corrupt practice under Section 123(4) and therefore no disqualification under Section 8A of the RP Act would arise.
Case Title: Yogender Chandolia v. Vishesh Ravi & Ors.
Case No.: EL.PET. 10/2020 (with I.A. 8728/2020 & I.A. 11988/2020)
Date of Judgment: 24 April 2026 (Reserved on 13 April 2026)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 