What Happened
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia) declared the election of Congress MLA Mukesh Malhotra from the Vijaypur Assembly constituency "null and void" for deliberately suppressing material information about pending criminal cases in his nomination affidavit.
- The court found that six criminal cases had been registered against Malhotra, but he disclosed only two incompletely in his Form-26 affidavit and omitted four others entirely — constituting a "corrupt practice" under electoral law.
- Ruling in Election Petition No. 24 of 2024, the court declared BJP candidate Ramniwas Rawat — who had secured the next highest number of votes — as the duly elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Vijaypur, District Sheopur.
- The by-election in November 2024 arose when Rawat, who had won the Vijaypur seat on a Congress ticket in the 2023 state assembly elections, resigned and joined the BJP — vacating the seat.
- The Congress party announced it would challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court.
Static Topic Bridges
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 33A and Criminal Disclosure Mandate
The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 governs elections to Parliament and state legislatures. Section 33A, inserted by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2003, requires every candidate to file a sworn affidavit along with the nomination paper (Form-26) disclosing: (i) all pending criminal cases in which charges have been framed by a competent court for offences punishable with imprisonment of two years or more; (ii) convictions; (iii) assets and liabilities; and (iv) educational qualifications. The disclosure requirement was mandated after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), which held that voters have a fundamental right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates. Non-disclosure or false disclosure of criminal cases amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RPA.
- Section 33A, RPA 1951: sworn affidavit (Form-26) mandatory at nomination — criminal cases, assets, liabilities, education
- Inserted by: RPA Amendment Act, 2003 (following SC mandate in ADR case, 2002)
- Disclosure requirement: all pending cases where charges have been framed for offences with 2+ years imprisonment
- Non-disclosure = corrupt practice under Section 123, RPA 1951 — grounds for election void under Section 100
- Returning Officer must publicly display the affidavit for voter information
- ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) case, 2002: SC held voters have fundamental right to know candidates' antecedents
Connection to this news: Malhotra's failure to fully disclose six criminal cases in Form-26 falls squarely within the corrupt practice definition under Section 123, and the High Court's voiding of his election enforces the core principle that voters cannot make informed choices without accurate criminal disclosures.
Election Petition Mechanism Under RPA, 1951
An election petition is the sole legal remedy to challenge the result of a declared election in India. Under Section 80 of the RPA, 1951, no election can be called in question except by an election petition presented to the appropriate authority. Election petitions for Lok Sabha and state assembly elections are heard by the respective High Courts (Section 80A, RPA). The petition must be filed within 45 days of the declaration of results. Grounds for declaring an election void include: corrupt practices by the returned candidate, improper acceptance of a nomination, non-compliance with election rules materially affecting the result, or that the returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified. Importantly, if the court voids an election on corrupt practice grounds, it can also declare the petitioner (if they secured the next highest votes) as the duly elected candidate — as happened in this case.
- Election petition filed under: Section 81, RPA 1951
- Time limit: 45 days from date of result declaration
- Heard by: respective High Court (for state legislature); Supreme Court (for President/VP elections)
- Section 100, RPA: grounds for declaring election void
- Section 101, RPA: court may declare petitioner or another candidate duly elected if corruption proven
- No re-election is required if court can determine the rightful winner — court directly declares the runner-up
Connection to this news: The Vijaypur case is a textbook application of the election petition mechanism — the petitioner (Rawat) not only sought voiding of Malhotra's election but also sought his own declaration as MLA, which the court granted under Section 101.
Anti-Defection Law and the "Aaya Ram Gaya Ram" Problem
The Vijaypur by-election itself was occasioned by a defection: Rawat, who won on a Congress ticket in 2023, resigned and joined the BJP. While the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law, added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985) disqualifies MLAs who voluntarily give up party membership, a member who resigns from the legislature itself (not just the party) vacates the seat without triggering disqualification — triggering a by-election instead. This is a recognised constitutional workaround used by parties to engineer floor crossings, as seen in several state-level defection episodes in recent years.
- Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law): inserted by 52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985
- Disqualification ground: voluntary surrender of original party membership OR voting against party whip
- Speaker/Chairman decides disqualification under Tenth Schedule — judicially reviewable
- Rawat's route: resigned from legislature (not party) → joined BJP → new by-election → filed election petition
- "Aaya Ram Gaya Ram": phrase coined from Haryana MLA Gaya Lal's three defections in 1967 — inspired the Anti-Defection Law
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): SC upheld validity of Tenth Schedule but made Speaker's decisions subject to judicial review
Connection to this news: The by-election's genesis in Rawat's defection-by-resignation illustrates a legal gap in the anti-defection framework; and the HC verdict underscores that even in by-elections triggered by political engineering, criminal non-disclosure remains a vitiating corrupt practice.
Key Facts & Data
- Case: Election Petition No. 24 of 2024 — Ramniwas Rawat v. Mukesh Malhotra
- Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court; Judge: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
- Constituency: Vijaypur, District Sheopur (Assembly Constituency No. 02)
- By-election date: November 13, 2024; results declared: November 23, 2024
- Malhotra's violation: disclosed only 2 of 6 criminal cases incompletely; omitted 4 entirely
- Legal basis for void: corrupt practice under Section 123, RPA 1951; declared void under Section 100
- Rawat declared elected: under Section 101, RPA 1951 (had second-highest votes)
- Congress party response: announced intention to appeal to the Supreme Court
- By-election trigger: Rawat resigned from assembly after 2023 win, joined BJP
- RPA Section 33A (inserted 2003): mandates sworn criminal disclosure affidavit in Form-26
- ADR case (2002): SC-established voter's fundamental right to know candidate antecedents