The Karnataka High Court on Friday set aside the 2019 election of Janata Dal (Secular) Member Parliament (MP) Prajwal Revanna from Hassan constituency to the parliament [A. Manju vs. Prajwal Revanna @ Prakwal R.]

Revanna is the sole Janata Dal (Secular) MP in Lok Sabha.

Justice K Natarajan held Prajwal guilty of corrupt practices on several counts including non-disclosure of material facts, wrong disclosure of value of properties, evading taxes, proxy voting, exorbitant expenditures than the limit prescribed by the Election Commission of India and wrong acceptance of nomination paper by the Returning Officer.

“The very acceptance of nomination by the Returning Officer is illegal and improper. It is the duty of the candidate who is contesting the election shall declare his sources of income, assets and liabilities in order to choose the candidate by the voters. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the candidate to show his source of income, but the respondent failed to show his source of income which misled the voters,” the Court said.

The Court also issued notice to Prajwal’s father HD Revanna, who was an in-charge Minister of Hassan district and also sitting PWD minister, and brother Suraj Revanna to show cause why they should not be named as per Section 99(a)(ii) of Representation of the People Act for committing corrupt practices to aid Prajwal’s election.

HD Revanna is a sitting MLA in the state and son of former Prime Minister of India HD Deve Gowda.

However, the Court also refused to declare then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate A Manju, who was one of the petitioners and also the defeated candidate, as the returned candidate from the constituency. The Court found that Manju himself was involved in corrupt practices.

The bench called it unfortunate that subsequently Manju joined the JDS and was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Arakalgud on its ticket. 

“Such a person has no legal right to declare himself to be elected candidate as Member of Parliament for Hassan constituency and in view of the petitioner A. Manju involved in corrupt practice, he is not deserving candidate to be elected as winning candidate either under Section 98(c) or 101 of the RP Act,” it added. 

"Corrupt Practices"

The Court concluded that Prajwal gave false information and false declaration of the value of immovable properties in his affidavit Form No. 26. It also held that the JD(S) candidate made a wrong declaration about loans in his affidavit in column no. 8 of the nomination paper. 

With regard to the allegation that Prajwal’s father HD Revanna diverted the funds pertaining to the Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Limited (CNNL) for developmental works, the Court said Prajwal influenced the voters by such actions.

While answering another question framed against Prajwal in affirmative, the Court said it should be presumed that the amount of ₹1,20,000 sent by him through his brother Dr Suraj Revanna was for distribution among voters.

“In spite of the model Code of Conduct of Election was in force, the question of carrying ₹1,20,000 by the respondent family for the purpose of purchasing the groceries cannot be acceptable. Thereby, the petitioner is successful in proving the corrupt practice of the respondent in the said election,” the Court said, while rejecting Prajwal's argument.

On the election campaign promise to Veerashaiva Community people that Prajwal will construct a Samudaya Bhavana for them if they voted for them, the Court found it violative under Section 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act. The provision pertains to appeal made by a candidate on grounds of religion.

“The petitioner is successful in proving that the government vehicles were used for transporting the election pamphlets without prior permission, which attracts the corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the RP Act,” it said further, with regard to another issue.

The Court also found that Prajwal’s family stayed together in the polling booth for hours together and called it unfortunate that the officials were too afraid of his father and then ruling party to send them out. 

Senior Advocate S Sreevatsa and advocates MR Vijayakumar and Sunil M.V represented petitioner A Manju.

Senior Advocate Uday Holla and advocate M Keshava Reddy represented respondent Prajwal Revanna.

Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi and advocate Hemanth Kumar D represented petitioner D Devarajegowda

[Read Judgment]