Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – ss. 27, 33- 35, 39 – Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979 – Representation of People Act, 1951 – s. 123(2) – Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Election Petition filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed, election of the appellant to the Mysore Municipal Corporation as Councillor was set aside – On appeal, held: A false declaration w.r.t the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of the candidate – It is undisputed that the appellant suppressed information w.r.t the assets of her husband – Corrupt Practices have been defined in s. 39(2), KMC Act to include ‘undue influence’ as defined in s. 123(2), 1951 RP Act – s. 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act came up for interpretation by this Court in Lok Prahari case, wherein it was held that the nondisclosure would amount to ‘undue influence’ as defined under the 1951 RP Act – Definition of ‘undue influence’ as used in s. 123(2) of 1951 RP Act is also adopted by s. 39(2) of the KMC Act – Therefore, the non-disclosure of assets in the municipal elections would also amount to ‘undue influence’ and consequently to ‘corrupt practice’– Further, the notifications issued by the State Election Commission were not questioned by the appellant– Rather, she accepted them as binding on her, and accordingly filed an affidavit– Thus, the appellant is estopped from questioning the validity of the notifications or the power of the State Election Commission to issue the same – Also, there is no legal or normative impediment for the State Election Commission to issue directions requiring disclosure of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates by way of affidavit – In issuing the notification, the Election Commission has not encroached into the legislative domain of the Karnataka State Legislature– No ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court affirming the order setting aside the election of appellant.

Constitution of India – Article 243-ZA(1), 324(1) – Held: The language and tenor of Article 243-ZA(1) is in pari materia with Article 324(1) – Interpretation of Article 324(1) to confer wide powers on the Election Commission to issue directions in respect of elections to Parliament and State legislatures would apply to Article 243- ZA(1) which has to be construed to confer powers on the State Election Commission to issue directions related to superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral roles or for conduct of elections to municipalities – State Election Commission has the same powers u/Article 243-K and 243-ZA(1) as the Election Commission has u/Article 324(1).

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979 – Representation of People Act, 1951 – Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Held: A hypertechnical view of the omission to incorporate any specific provision in the KMC Election Rules, similar to the 1961 Rules, expressly requiring disclosure of assets, to condone dishonesty and corrupt practice would be against the spirit of the Constitution and public interest.

Precedent – Held: A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law raised and decided – Judgment has to be construed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which it has been rendered