In a recent judicial proclamation, the Supreme Court of India delineated that the mere oversight of not transferring vehicle registration to a new owner does not render a sale or gift transaction null and void.
This pronouncement unfolded within the context of a legal dispute concerning the non-disclosure of three vehicles purportedly owned by family members of Arunachal Pradesh MLA Karikho Kri in an election affidavit, raising questions about the validity of his election.
Upon scrutiny, the Court discovered that the three vehicles—an assortment of a scooty, a Maruti Omni car, and a motorcycle—had indeed been transferred to third parties for consideration. However, the formal transfer of registration under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 had not transpired.
Central to the dispute was whether these vehicles could be deemed as belonging to the legislator’s family due to the oversight in registration transfer, potentially jeopardizing his nomination.
Contrary to the High Court’s reliance on precedent, the Supreme Court discerned that the cited judgment was not applicable in this instance, as it pertained to the liability of the registered owner in motor accident compensation claims rather than the general applicability in sale transactions.
Asserting the legal stance, the Court elucidated that under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the conveyance of ownership is affirmed upon the execution of the sale/transfer document, with registration serving as a subsequent formality.
In analyzing the case at hand, the Court underscored that while the vehicles were indeed transferred, it was the transferees who failed to effectuate the registration transfer, absolving the former owner of any undue influence or control over the vehicles.
Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the Gauhati High Court’s decision nullifying the MLA’s election, emphasizing that the non-disclosure of vehicles formerly owned by the candidate’s dependents does not constitute a corrupt practice under the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951.
Moreover, considering the nominal value of the vehicles in question in relation to the overall wealth declaration, the Court concluded that their non-disclosure does not materially impact the election outcome or the candidate’s declaration of wealth.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that every instance of non-disclosure by a candidate does not invalidate their nomination unless it substantially affects the election outcome, thus upholding the sanctity of democratic processes.
The case of KARIKHO KRI vs. NUNEY TAYANG stands as a testament to the intricate legal considerations surrounding election laws and the interpretation of statutes in ensuring fair and transparent electoral practices.
