Legal Review and Analysis of KM Shaji vs MV Nikesh Kumar & Ors 2026 INSC 111

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a Division Bench, adjudicated a critical issue concerning the jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court and the President of India in matters of disqualification for corrupt practices in elections. The appeal challenged a High Court order that not only set aside the election of the successful candidate but also directly imposed a six-year disqualification from contesting elections. The Supreme Court clarified the statutory scheme under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, holding that while the High Court has the power to declare an election void for corrupt practices, the consequential power to disqualify a candidate vests exclusively with the President of India.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: K.M. Shaji vs M. V. Nikesh Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 111

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Civil Appeal Nos.: 11183 of 2018, 249 of 2019, 1230 of 2019

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Nature of Bench: Division Bench (Not a Constitutional Bench)

2. Legal Framework & Relevant Provisions

• Primary Legislation: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951).

• Key Provisions Involved:
  Sections 123(2)(a)(ii), 123(3) & 123(4): Define 'corrupt practices' related to undue influence, appeal on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, and the publication of false statements.
  Sections 100(1)(b) & 100(1)(d)(ii): Grounds for declaring an election void, including improper acceptance of a nomination and commission of corrupt practices.
  Section 8A: The central provision in dispute. It outlines the procedure for disqualification on the ground of corrupt practices, mandating that the case of a person found guilty be submitted to the President of India, who, after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission, determines the question and period of disqualification (not exceeding six years).
  Sections 98 & 99: Deal with the High Court's decision on an election petition and its orders regarding corrupt practices.

• Core Legal Principle: The judgment hinges on the separation of adjudicatory and disqualification powers under the RP Act. The High Court is the fact-finding authority that can find a person guilty of corrupt practice and set aside the election. However, the formal disqualification is an executive or quasi-executive function reserved for the President, acting on the Election Commission's opinion.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant, K.M. Shaji, was elected as a Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the Azheekode Assembly Constituency in May 2016.

• Respondent No. 1, M.V. Nikesh Kumar (the defeated candidate), filed an election petition (No. 11 of 2016) before the Kerala High Court alleging corrupt practices under Sections 123(2)(a)(ii), 123(3), and 123(4) of the RP Act.

• By order dated 09.11.2018, the High Court partly allowed the petition. It:
  Declared the appellant's election void under Sections 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(ii).
  Disqualified the appellant from contesting any election for six years.
  Imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant.

• The appellant's tenure as MLA (2016-2021) had lapsed by the time of the Supreme Court hearing. He had continued participating in assembly proceedings (without voting or financial benefits) due to an interim order from the Supreme Court dated 27.11.2018.

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court, upon finding a candidate guilty of corrupt practice and voiding the election, could directly impose a period of disqualification from contesting future elections?

2. Whether the challenge to the setting aside of the election remained a "live issue" given that the term of the office (2016-2021) had already expired?

5. Ratio Decidendi (Court’s Reasoning & Decision)

• On the Disqualification Power (Core Holding): The Supreme Court conducted a plain reading of Section 8A of the RP Act. It held that the power to disqualify a person found guilty of corrupt practice is exclusively vested with the President of India. The High Court's role ends with making a finding of guilt under Section 99. The statute mandates a specific process: the case must be submitted to the President, who, after consulting the Election Commission, decides on disqualification. Therefore, Clause (2) of the High Court's operative order (imposing a six-year disqualification) was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. It was set aside on this short ground.

• On the Mootness of the Election Challenge: The Court noted that the appellant's tenure (2016-2021) had lapsed. Since the wrongful disqualification clause was being severed, setting aside the election itself had no continuing practical consequence for that term. The appellant was free to contest future elections in accordance with law. Thus, the Court declined to examine the merits of the finding of corrupt practice, as it was no longer a "live issue" requiring adjudication.

• Final Ruling:
  Civil Appeal No. 11183 of 2018 was allowed in part. Clause (2) of the High Court's order dated 09.11.2018 was set aside. The rest of the order, including the setting aside of the election, was left undisturbed but rendered academic.
  Civil Appeal No. 249 of 2019 (arising from a related election petition) was disposed of in terms of the above.
  Civil Appeal No. 1230 of 2019, filed by the election petitioner challenging the rejection of certain reliefs, was also disposed of as a consequence.

6. Legal Framework Reiterated and Clarified

The judgment does not establish new law but provides a crucial clarification on the institutional hierarchy under the RP Act:

• Adjudicative vs. Executive Function: It reinforces a clear demarcation: The High Court acts as a judicial tribunal to determine the validity of an election and record findings of fact regarding corrupt practices. The President, acting on the Election Commission's advice, performs the discretionary, consequential function of disqualification. This ensures a check-and-balance, preventing a single judicial forum from both convicting and sentencing in the electoral context.

7. Judicial Examination & Analysis

The Court's analysis was textual and procedural:

• Step 1 – Statutory Interpretation: The Court focused on the unambiguous language of Section 8A, particularly the phrase "shall be submitted... to the President for determination of the question." This was interpreted as a mandatory, exclusive procedure.

• Step 2 – Identifying Jurisdictional Error: The Court concluded that the High Court "exercised the powers of the President," which it "could not have done." This was a pure error of law relating to jurisdiction.

• Step 3 – Applying the Doctrine of Mootness: The Court exercised judicial economy. Once the disqualification—the only part with prospective effect—was quashed, and the elected term was over, delving into the factual matrix of the 2016 election would be an academic exercise with no practical relief to offer.

• Step 4 – Disposal of Connected Appeals: The logic applied to the main appeal was seamlessly extended to dispose of the connected appeals, ensuring consistency.

8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome

• Core Outcome: The Supreme Court curtailed the High Court's overreach and restored the statutory procedure for disqualification. The appellant was relieved of the six-year disqualification imposed by the High Court, protecting his future political rights. The finding of corrupt practice and voiding of the past election, however, remained on record.

• Significance: The judgment serves as a binding precedent for all High Courts, instructing them to limit their orders in election petitions to the confines of Sections 98, 99, and 100 of the RP Act. It reaffirms that the disqualification mechanism under Section 8A is a distinct, post-decisional process.

• Critical Perspective: The judgment is procedurally sound. However, one could critique the Court's decision to not examine the merits of the corrupt practice findings. While mootness is a valid principle, a finding of corrupt practice carries significant stigma. By leaving it untouched, the appellant remains "found guilty" in judicial records without a Supreme Court review, which could have reputational consequences. The Court prioritized procedural purity over a substantive re-examination, likely due to the expired term.

(MCQs)

1. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which authority has the ultimate power to decide on disqualifying a candidate found guilty of corrupt practice by the High Court?
a) The Supreme Court of India
b) The High Court that tried the election petition
c) The Election Commission of India
d) The President of India

2. Which section of the RP Act, 1951, specifically outlines the procedure for disqualification on the ground of corrupt practices?
a) Section 100
b) Section 123
c) Section 8A
d) Section 99

3. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's disqualification order primarily because it violated?
a) The fundamental rights of the appellant.
b) The doctrine of separation of powers and the specific mandate of Section 8A, RP Act.
c) The principles of natural justice.
d) The territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

4. Why did the Supreme Court consider the challenge to the setting aside of the election no longer a "live issue"?
a) The appellant had won the subsequent election.
b) The term of the office (2016-2021) for which the appellant was elected had already lapsed.
c) The election petitioner had withdrawn the petition.
d) The Election Commission had reinstated the appellant.