Fadnavis must face trial for concealing facts: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a setback to Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the clean chits given to him by a trial court and the Bombay high court in the case of allegedly filing false election affidavits, thus paving the way for his trial.

Noting that the incumbent CM should face trial for suppressing crucial facts related to two pending criminal cases in his affidavit for the 2014 Assembly elections, the Supreme Court ordered the trial court in Nagpur to consider afresh the complaint.

The order comes just weeks before Maharashtra votes to elect MLAs to its 288-member Legislative Assembly. Voting is scheduled for October 21 and counting is to take place on October 24. The judgment, however, has no bearing on Mr Fadnavis continuing as public representative or contesting elections.

A Nagpur-based lawyer Satish Ukey had challenged Mr Fadnavis’ nomination papers and sought criminal actions against him for “suppressing the truth” about two cases of alleged cheating and forgery filed against him in 1996 and 1998.

Noting that Mr Fadnavis had “knowledge” of the two cases against him but did not mention them in the affidavit at the time of filing nomination, a three-judge bench of Chief

Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose set aside the Bombay high court order upholding the dismissal of the complaint by the Nagpur magistrate and observed that prima facie a case under Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act was made out against the chief minister.

CJI Gogoi, speaking for the bench, said, “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.”

Having set-aside the high court order and that of the trial court as well, CJI Gogoi said that the complaint by Mr Ukey would be considered afresh by the trial court from the stage where it was interdicted by May 30, 2016, order.

Mr Fadnavis had contended in the course of the hearing of the matter that “of the 25 cases, I disclose 23, forgetting 2. Does forgetting 2 cases bring me in the pale of Section 125 A of the Representation of Peoples Act.”

Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act provides for penalty and six-month jail term for filing false affidavit.

Mr Ukey had moved the top court seeking that Mr Fadnavis be disqualified for not making full and complete disclosure of information about criminal cases pending against him by suppressing information about two pending criminal cases.