The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim relief to Congress MLA S.N. Subbareddy. It stayed a Karnataka High Court judgment that had set aside his election from the Bagepalli Assembly constituency in the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notice to the respondent while hearing Subbareddy’s civil appeal challenging the High Court verdict. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat appeared for the appellant.
Pending further consideration, the Bench directed that Subbareddy will continue to be treated as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for all practical purposes. The Court also directed the respondent, C. Muniraju, the BJP candidate who lost the election, to file a counter-affidavit.
The Court listed the appeal for final hearing in September 2026.
Background of the High Court Ruling
Earlier, the Karnataka High Court annulled Subbareddy’s election. It held that he failed to fully disclose his assets in the nomination affidavit. According to the High Court, the alleged non-disclosure amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
However, despite setting aside the election, the High Court did not declare the rival candidate as duly elected.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Opposing interim relief, counsel for Muniraju argued that Subbareddy failed to disclose his liquor business in the affidavit filed along with his nomination papers.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant orally remarked:
“When you don’t win elections, you dig up such grounds.”
The respondent’s counsel contended that although Subbareddy disclosed his hospitality business, he deliberately avoided mentioning his liquor business.
Court’s Observations on Disclosure Requirements
Justice Joymalya Bagchi responded by observing that the legal requirement focuses on disclosure of income and not necessarily on the nature of the business. Referring to the Common Cause and Lok Prahari judgments, Justice Bagchi questioned whether those rulings mandated disclosure of the nature of business. He noted that only income needs to be disclosed.
Chief Justice Surya Kant further remarked that courts cannot assume the role of chartered accountants. When the respondent’s counsel argued that the nature of investments must also be disclosed, Justice Bagchi clarified that investments stand on a different footing from running business activities.
Allegation of Property Tax Default
The respondent also alleged that Subbareddy defaulted on property tax payments since 2018. He claimed that Subbareddy cleared arrears amounting to ₹1.09 crore only after the election petition was filed.
Case Details
The matter arises from S.N. Subbareddy alias Chinnakayalapalli v. C. Muniraju
