Former Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis (File photo)

NEW DELHI: In a setback to former Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis , the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to re-examine its verdict reviving trial for allegedly not disclosing all pending criminal cases against him while filing nomination papers for the 2014 assembly elections.

Reviving the complaint filed by advocate Satish Ukey, the apex court had in October ruled that a candidate must disclose all criminal cases in which the court has taken cognisance at the time of contesting elections. “In view of the clear averments made in the complaint to the effect that Fadnavis had knowledge of two cases against him which had not been mentioned in the affidavit filed by him along with his nomination papers, we unhesitatingly arrive at the conclusion that the order of the trial court, upheld by the Bombay High Court , is legally not tenable and the same deserves to be set aside,” SC had said.

Alleging that his “fate has been sealed” by SC by reviving the trial, Fadnavis sought review of the verdict and contended that it would have huge ramifications for other candidates in future elections as it could be misused. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi , appearing for him, contended that a false case could be filed due to political rivalry and the court could take cognisance of the case just a day before filing of nomination papers and a candidate might not know about it.

Fadnavis contended that in such cases, a person has to face prosecution for not furnishing information which he did not know. He said a candidate should be asked to disclose only those criminal cases in which charges have been framed or chargesheet filed.

But a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose dismissed his petition. “We find no ground to interfere in the review petitions. The same are dismissed,” it said.

The two cases which Fadnavis did not mention in his election affidavit of 2014 are “summary case no. 232 of 1996 (u/s 500 of IPC — defamation) and regular criminal case no. 343 of 2003 under various sections of IPC, both pending before Nagpur courts”.

Referring to letters issued by the Election Commission to the chief electoral officers of all states and UTs, the apex court had said, “A reading of the said letters would go to show that a contesting candidate is mandated to furnish information concerning cases in which a competent court has taken cognisance along with the cases in which charges have been framed.”

