In Brief
A duly elected Municipal Councillor challenged the setting aside of her election for failing to disclose her husband's assets in the affidavit filed with her nomination. The Supreme Court held that false declaration regarding assets of a candidate, spouse or dependents constitutes corrupt practice even without express statutory requirement for disclosure. The State Election Commission validly exercised constitutional powers under Article 243-ZA to direct asset disclosure as an aid to electoral purity and voter information. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the candidate's misstatement of her husband's name and omission of his properties violated statutory corrupt practice provisions and warranted setting aside the election.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.