Prosecution of Devendra Fadnavis under Representation of People Act: SC to hear review plea in open Court

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear in open court the review petition filed by former Chief Minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis against the Court's judgment by which it was held that a case had been made out to proceed against him under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951..An order was passed to this effect yesterday by a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose states, .Application(s) seeking oral hearing of the Review Petitions in open court is/are allowed. List the Review Petitions before the Court.Supreme Court.A petition had been filed in the Supreme Court bringing to light Fadnavis' alleged concealment of two criminal cases against him in the election affidavit filed in 2014. The Court had issued notice in the plea in December 2018.In October last year, the Supreme Court had "unhesitatingly" held that a case has been made for the prosecution of Fadnavis..Breaking: SC allows prosecution of Devendra Fadnavis under Section 125 of Representation of People Act.It therefore set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and remanded the matter for trial afresh. The order was passed in an appeal filed by Satish Ukey against the Bombay High Court verdict which had ruled in favour of Devendra Fadnavis..Fadnavis had contested the elections from Constituency-52, South-West, Nagpur, the State of Maharashtra. He submitted his nomination paper along with the requisite documents and affidavit in prescribed form, Form No. 26 as prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961..The affidavit filed in Form No. 26 contained a declaration regarding the information that he was required to submit mandatorily, in particular, the information in terms of Section 33A (1) and (2) of the Representation of the RP Act, 1951. This provision of law required him to disclose information relating to any pending criminal case in which the punishment prescribed was of imprisonment for two years or more, and a charge was framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, or those criminal cases in which he was convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more..It was Ukey’s case that Devendra Fadnavis did not disclose the information as required of him under sub-section (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951..According to him, there were two such cases in both of which though charge was not framed, the concerned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur had taken cognizance. These two cases were not disclosed by Fadnavis in his affidavit, he had submitted..Whereas the Bombay High Court had set aside an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge against Fadnavis, the Supreme Court Bench of former CJI Ranjan Gogoi along with Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose concluded last year that, ..”..in view of the clear averment made in the complaint to the effect that the First Respondent (Fadnavis) had knowledge of the two cases against him which had not been mentioned in the affidavit filed by the First Respondent alongwith his nomination papers, we unhesitatingly arrive at the conclusion that the order of the learned trial Court upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2018 is legally not tenable and the same deserves to be set aside which we hereby do.”.The matter had been remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration from the stage where it was interdicted. Fadnavis thereafter moved the Supreme Court to review this ruling. .[Read the order passed on January 23, 2020]