Candidates elected unopposed should also tender account of election expenses: Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has held that candidates who are elected unopposed in local body elections, are also required to furnish accounts of election expenses incurred by them. .The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and Sunil P Deshmukh. .The Court observed that the recent trend among candidates is to publicise their candidature with much fanfare.Even while submitting their nomination forms, candidates opt for processions with bands, putting cut- outs, advertisements, etc which involve substantial expenditure, the Court said.Hence, expenses are incurred by such a candidate even if there is no other candidate contesting election against the concerned person. ."It, thus, cannot be said in all the cases there would be no election expenses in contest free or unopposed elections and candidates getting elected unopposed, would stand exempted from tendering election expenses," the court held. .The matter was initially heard by a single-judge which noted a judgment passed by Bombay High Court in the case of Dipmala w/o Ravindra Chachane V/s. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. The single-judge noted that the Dipmala judgment gave an indication that for a particular post only if there are two or more candidates, it would amount to a contest and candidates incurring expenditure in such a contest are only obliged to tender their accounts..The single judge also adverted to two orders passed by the State Election Commission (EC) - one, an order dated February 7, 1995 where a candidate was supposed to maintain an abstract of accounts of expenditure; and two, an order dated October 15, 2016 with regard to submission of expenses in election to the Parliament, Legislative assembly and local bodies..The single-judge noted that the two orders of the Election Commission were not brought to the notice of the Bombay High Court in Dipmala. Hence, the single judge referred the question to a larger bench after framing the following question to be considered by the larger Bench. “Whether a candidate elected unopposed, is required to tender his accounts of election expenditure under Section 14B (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, Section 16 (1- D) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Nagar Panchayats and Townships Act 1965 and section 15B (1) under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961, in view of the order dated 07.02.1995 and the Government Resolution dated 15.10.2016? ”.Advocate Jiwan J Patil appearing for the petitioners submitted that in order to prevent and deter candidates from misusing money, the provisions of the Village Panchayat Acts were introduced. He, however, argued that non-furnishing of accounts within time, would not in all cases entail disqualification, as the vested discretion by the election authority ought to be exercised to maintain the election of the person who has been democratically elected. .In many a case, the candidate goes elected without any contest eliminating expenses required over election contest. In such cases, Patil argued, "non submissions of accounts while there are no election expenses worth the name, non compliance of procedure, may have to be appropriately construed without disturbing election of a person who has been democratically elected"..Interpreting the provisions under Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, the Division Bench stated that the regulations were introduced to bring purity in elections and check the financial affairs and transactions of the candidates. "Money, its power and infuence have strong propensity to subserve the cause of privileged class putting them in distinctly advantageous position," the bench observed..The Court opined that the provisions emerged due to the "unethical, unlawful and corrupt use of money to infuence, entice, induce people rather corrupting their conscience and/or may be a case to take disadvantage of poor condition of people forcing them to surrender their conscience and obtain votes".The regulatory provisions keep the candidates in check and restrict their unbridled tendencies, desires and ambitions and warns them not to drift to unethical means to have themselves elected, the Court further said. .The Division Bench also noted that in the Dipmala's case, neither of the State EC's order were referred to or brought to the notice of the Court. The verdict came on the specific facts of the case, and no other judgment had laid down such a ratio that in all cases of unopposed elections, accounts need not be furnished, the Court noted.."It, thus, cannot be said in all the cases that, there would be no election expenses in contest free or unopposed elections and candidates getting elected unopposed, would stand exempted from tendering election expenses," the Court ruled. .[Read Order]