Summary and Analysis of Ajmera Shyam vs Smt Kova Laxmi & Ors
1. Heading of the Judgment
Ajmera Shyam vs Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13015 of 2024)
Decided by the Supreme Court of India on August 14, 2025.
Citation: Ajmera Shyam vs Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors., (2025) INSC 992.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment interprets:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA):
Section 100: Grounds for declaring election void.
Section 125A: Penalty for false affidavits.
Sections 33A & 33B: Disclosure of criminal antecedents (introduced via 2002 amendment).Conduct of Election Rules, 1961:
Rule 4A: Mandates filing of Form 26 affidavit.Constitution of India:
Article 19(1)(a): Right to information as part of freedom of speech.
Article 327: Parliament’s power to regulate elections.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Parties:
Appellant: Ajmera Shyam (defeated candidate, Indian National Congress).
Respondents: Smt. Kova Laxmi (elected MLA, BRS Party) & State Election Commission.Background:
2023 Telangana Assembly Elections: Kova Laxmi won from Asifabad (ST) constituency by 22,798 votes.
Allegation by Appellant: Kova Laxmi failed to disclose income from:
Honorarium as Zilla Parishad Chairperson (₹1 lakh/month).
Ex-MLA pension (₹30,000/month).
Income tax returns for 4 financial years (2018–2022) in Form 26 affidavit, showing "Nil" instead.
High Court’s Ruling: Rejected election petition; upheld Kova Laxmi’s election.Core Issue: Whether non-disclosure of income details voids election under Section 100 RPA.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Key Legal Principles Established
Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a):
Voters have a fundamental right to know candidates’ antecedents (Association for Democratic Reforms v. UOI, 2002).
Form 26 affidavit (Rule 4A) operationalizes this right by mandating disclosure of assets, income, and criminal records.Distinction Between Defects:
Criminal antecedents: Non-disclosure is grave; voids election (Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, 2015).
Asset/income non-disclosure: Requires examination of whether the defect is "substantial" (Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang, 2024).Test for "Substantial Defect":
Non-disclosure must materially affect election outcomes or involve deliberate fraud.
Technical defects (e.g., missing income details) without evidence of concealment or voter deception do not void elections.Burden of Proof in Election Petitions:
Allegations of corrupt practice require proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, 1999).
Appellant failed to prove:
Intentional suppression.
Impact on election results.
Application to Facts
Non-Disclosure of Income:
Kova Laxmi disclosed:
Assets, liabilities, PAN, and source of income (honorarium).
ITR for 2022–23 (₹11.5 lakh) but showed "Nil" for 2018–2022.
Court’s Finding:
No hidden assets; disclosures were otherwise complete.
Non-disclosure was procedural, not substantial.Alleged Corrupt Practice:
Appellant’s Claim: Non-disclosure amounts to "undue influence" under Section 123(2) RPA.
Court’s Rejection:
No evidence of voter deception or impact on electoral outcome.
Kova Laxmi’s popularity as ex-MLA and Zilla Parishad Chairperson was established.Appellant’s Procedural Lapse:
No objection raised during nomination scrutiny (Section 36 RPA).
Defeated by a large margin (22,798 votes), indicating no material effect.
Conclusion
Election Valid: Non-disclosure was not a substantial defect.
No improper acceptance of nomination (Section 100(1)(d)(i)).
No corrupt practice (Section 100(1)(b)).
No non-compliance with RPA (Section 100(1)(d)(iv)).Appeal Dismissed: Kova Laxmi’s election upheld.
5. Significance
"Non-disclosure of income details in election affidavits is not per se fatal. Courts must examine whether the defect is substantial enough to vitiate the electorate’s mandate, especially when the candidate enjoys popular support."
The judgment balances electoral transparency with sanctity of voter verdicts, cautioning against invalidating elections for technical irregularities.
Blog Posts
