HC reserves judgment on MLA Kebi
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, May 05 2025: The single bench of Justice Ahanthem Bimol of the High Court of Manipur, on Monday reserved judgment in an election petition filed by Soibam Subhaschandra Singh of the National People's Party against Sagolshem Kebi Devi of the Bharatiya Janata Party over the 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly seat.

Subhaschandra challenged results of the February 28, 2022, poll held as part of the first phase of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly elections.

In the results declared March 10, 2022, Kebi secured 11,058 votes, defeating Subhaschandra by a margin of 531 .

During Monday's hearing, senior counsel HS Paonam, assisted by S Gunabanta, appeared for the petitioner, while Ayanglei-ma represented Kebi.

Both sides submitted written arguments before Justice Bimol concluded proceedings and reserved the judgment.

Subhaschandra's petition alleges that Kebi provided false and misleading information in her nomination affidavit (Form 26) .

Academic and RTI records, including school enrolment lists and board certificates, indicate her official name is Sagolshem Sonalika Devi, yet she filed as "Sagolshem Kebi Devi" .

He further contended she misrepresented her educational qualification - claiming to have passed Class X when records show only Class IX completion.

The petition also asserted that Kebi failed to disclose non-agricultural assets owned by her spouse, undervalued her own property, and declared at Rs 1.4 lakh instead of the Rs 5.4 lakh recorded in a sale deed.

She also allegedly made false claim of having no pending property tax dues, contrary to Jamabandi land tax records.

Subhaschandra argued these omissions and misrepresentations amount to corrupt practices by undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and sought to have her election declared hull and void under Section 100(l)(d)(i), with himself declared the duly elected member under Section 101 .

In its conclusion, the court observed that the evidence "clearly establishes" a pattern of deliberate concealment and false declaration that compromises electoral integrity.

Citing Supreme Court precedents affirming the necessity of full disclosure of identity and assets, the bench held that such misrepresentations justify voiding the election and potentially declaring the runner up duly elected, but reserved its final order.

Comment