Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 06 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-10-01 allowed

SATISH UKEY vs DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS

Bench: 3 — Ranjan Gogoi, Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose

In Brief

The appellant, a lawyer, complained that the Chief Minister, in his election affidavit (Form 26), failed to disclose two pending criminal cases where cognizance had been taken by courts, violating Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act. The High Court had dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court held that candidates must disclose all pending criminal cases in which cognizance has been taken, not only those where charges have been framed. The Court's interpretation aligned Form 26 with voters' fundamental right to know candidates' criminal antecedents. The Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the case to proceed afresh for determination of criminal liability under Section 125-A.">

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Electoral Law Right to Information Criminal Procedure Election Petitions False Affidavits

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login