N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY v. KAVITHA MAHESH INSC 343

Name of the case: N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY v. KAVITHA MAHESH INSC Year decided: 2021 Facts: In the 2008 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections she had been elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (MLA) to the K.R. Pura constituency. Kavitha Mahesh, an elector from the same constituency, filed Contingent petition in terms of Article 102 who contested the election's legitimacy. Returning Officer's reversal of judgment on the grounds that she lost her candidacy papers led to an effect on the fairness and outcome of the election, she said. Reddy claimed there were 'no contradictions in the testimony of the Returning Officer' in the election trial and would prosecute him for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Karnataka High Court ruled that Reddy's election was null and void. As a result, Reddy and the Returning Officer took to the Supreme Court to appeal both of the perjury charges and the election’s validity. Issue: Whether the election of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy as a Legislative Assembly (MLA) member for the K.R. Pura constituency should be considered illegal, when the same returning officer incorrectly refused to accept Kavitha Mahesh's nomination papers. Was the prosecution of The Returning Officer for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) justified in the light of his contradictory statements made before and the Election petition proceedings? Decision: It was further observed on the part of the Court that the primary claim had become moot because other elections had already been held, and the legality of the election was fructuous. The Court refrained to go into great detail about this issue. The Court overturned the High Court’s order for charges to be brought against the Returning Officer under Section 193 IPC. If there is no unmistakable proof of deliberate deception the Supreme Court ruled that inconsistent witness testimony alone does not provide sufficient basis for criminal prosecution for perjury. Majority Decision reasoning: On the Validity of the Election: But the electoral issue was no longer important because time had come and gone and there were new elections, the Court said. It therefore did not determine if the Returning Officer's not rejecting the nomination papers in error affected the fairness of the election. On Perjury Allegations Against the Returning Officer: Meanwhile, the issue of electoral had already passed the time of the past and it had even seen new elections so the issue is no longer relevant, the Court said. In this regard, it did not inquire whether the Returning Officer’s inecct rejection of nomination papers led to the fairness of the election. The Court has emphasized that they need to be convicted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the accused purposively gives falsified or fraudulent evidence. It is not the fact that a witness's proof is actually, in whole or in part, inconsistent or different from what he said it was that serves to make his testimony unqualifiedly perjured and to subject him to be prosecuted therefor; but a witness may not be prosecuted for perjury unless the discrepancy is between what he did make, and his not making it as he testified. The Court held it could not conclude beyond doubt that the Returning Officer's comments made during the trial were deliberately lies. The disparities could have been because of unintentional falsification, or because honest mistakes or deliberate lack of memory. The Court also repeated that, in order to advance the interests of justice, perjury charges should be brought only in exceptional cases. Unwarranted or baseless prosecutions can shock witnesses into silence, especially public servants doing their duty in the line of duty. It reached the conclusion that the High Court was in error in directing that the Returning Officer should be prosecuted, without first proving there is such intention to fabricate or misrepresent evidence. Dissenting opinion reasoning: There was no opposing viewpoint. The conclusion and reasoning of all the judges was unanimous and all concurred. Unanimously, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court which ordered the Returning Officer to be charged with perjury and whilst refusing to go to the detail of the fairness of the elections became moot by reason of later elections. Impact of the case: The N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v decimated election law and used perjury in Indian law. Kavitha Mahesh case. The Supreme Court by its pronouncement laid down the finger print that outrageing witness testimony never needs to be recorded as perjury unless it has the inevitable stamp of deliberate lying. This ruling guarantees that the administration of a prosecution for perjury protects witnesses, especially public officials, from overzealous treatment, and assures the goals of justice. To preserve the integrity of the democracy, the ruling highlighted the importance of procedural justice in the electoral process and caution against overlooking nomination papers, and how the main election question is moot due to later elections, the case showed how election petitions could take a long time to resolve. It helped create that larger legal framework that determines elections, legal procedures, and this kind of striking a balance between credibility and fair play, by setting a precedent for judicial prudence and moderation.