The High Court of Karnataka has declared null and void the 2019 election of Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajwal Revanna on grounds of corruption.
Revanna had successfully contested the 2019 Lok Sabha polls from Hassan constituency of Karnataka and became the lone face of Janata Dal (Secular) MP in the lower house.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice K. Natarajan on Friday found Prajwal guilty of corrupt practices on several counts such as wrong disclosure of value of properties, non-disclosure of material facts, evading taxes, exorbitant expenditures than the limit prescribed by the Election Commission of India and proxy voting.
The High Court also found fault with the acceptance of nomination by the Returning Officer, calling it illegal and improper.
As per the Single-Judge Bench, it was the duty of a candidate contesting the elections to declare his sources of income, liabilities and assets, so as to show his honesty before the voters. However, the respondent failed to show his source of income which misled the voters.
The Bench further issued notice to Prajwal’s father H.D. Revanna, who was an in-charge Minister of Hassan district and also the then PWD Minister. His brother Dr. Suraj Revanna was also issued a show cause notice on why they should not be named as per Section 99(a)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act for committing corrupt practices to aid Prajwal’s election.
Sitting MLA H.D. Revanna is the son of former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda.
The Bench, however, refused to declare then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate A. Manju, who was one of the petitioners and also a defeated candidate, as the returned candidate from the constituency.
The High Court took in view the fact that Manju subsequently joined the JDS and was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Arkalgud on its ticket.
The Single-Judge Bench, while noting that Manju himself was involved in corrupt practices, said that such a person had no legal right to declare himself as an elected candidate (Member of Parliament) for Hassan constituency. It further said that Manju was not deserving to be elected as a winning candidate either under Section 98(c) or 101 of the RP Act.
The High Court ruled that Prajwal gave false information and false declaration of the value of immovable properties in his affidavit Form No. 26. Further, he made a wrong declaration about loans in his affidavit in column no. 8 of the nomination paper.
The Bench further took in view the allegation that Prajwal’s father H.D. Revanna diverted the funds pertaining to the Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Limited (CNNL) for developmental works, observing that Prajwal influenced the voters by such actions.
Justice Natarajan observed that in spite of the Model Code of Conduct of Election being in force, the question of carrying Rs 1.2 lakh by the respondent family for the purpose of purchasing groceries could not be accepted.
It should be presumed that the amount of Rs 1.2 lakh sent by Prajwal through his brother Suraj Revanna was for distribution among voters, he added.
The Single-Judge bench further termed as violative under Section 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act, the election campaign promise made by Prajwal to the Veerashaiva community people that he would construct a Samudaya Bhavana for them if they voted for him.
The High Court noted that provision pertained to an appeal made by a candidate on grounds of religion.
He was also found guilty of using government vehicles for transportation of election pamphlets without prior permission, which attracted corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the RP Act.
Justice Natarajan further took in view the fact that Prajwal’s family stayed together in the polling booth for hours together. He called it unfortunate that the officials were too afraid of his father and the then ruling party to send them out.
Petitioner A Manju was represented by Senior Advocate S. Sreevatsa and Advocates M.R. Vijayakumar and Sunil M.V., while petitioner D. Devarajegowda was represented by Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi and Advocate Hemanth Kumar D.
Senior Advocate Uday Holla and Advocate M. Keshava Reddy appeared for respondent Prajwal Revanna.
(Case title: A. Manju vs. Prajwal Revanna @ Prakwal R)