“Merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and fastidious approach, unless it is shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result,” it said.

The bench said in the case at hand, it was not demonstrated that such concealment or non-disclosure of certain information related to assets was of a substantial nature, materially affecting the result of the election of returned candidate.

Referring to a previous verdict of the apex court, the bench said it observed a case of non-disclosure of assets, amounted to a corrupt practice.

“But the non-disclosure of income as per income tax return in the present case, as discussed above, is not of a substantial nature to be considered a corrupt practice,” the bench said.

“The true test,” the bench said, “would be whether the non-disclosure of information about assets in any case is of consequential or inconsequential import, finding of which will be the basis for declaring the election valid or void as the case may be”.

It said judicial intervention in election disputes concerning disclosure of information was prompted by the quest for “sanitising the electoral process” by eliminating polluting elements by making candidates’ criminal antecedents public.

The verdict pointed out the disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification was concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non-compliances of non-substantial character and nullify a popular mandate.