Declaring “nil” tax dues in the assets and liabilities statement filed with his nomination papers – despite owing ₹1.3 crore in property tax arrears since 2018 – cost S.N. Subba Reddy his MLA post.
This false declaration is one of the main reasons based on which his election from the Bagepalli constituency was declared invalid and was set aside by the High Court of Karnataka in its February 16 verdict while terming his action of making false declaration as “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
“False statement or a false declaration, that too made on oath, inherently carries with it corrupt, deceitful, dishonest and fraudulent intent, which once proved, neither requires further probe of its innocence nor the need of testing the same through the lens of substantiality,” observed Justice M.G.S. Kamal in his verdict.
Ceases to MLA
With this verdict, Mr. Reddy ceases to be a MLA unless the Supreme Court stays this verdict as the High Court had declined to keep its verdict in abeyance to enable him to approach the apex court.
Apart from this false disclosure, the court also found that Mr. Reddy had neither disclosed his sources of income nor the details of his business entities/concern – R and R Bar and Restaurant; Bhagini Residency; Srinivasa Wines; Bhagini Palace; Wholesale Liquor Proprietorship Concern – and their corresponding current account balance details. Similarly, there is no disclosure with regard to business being run by his wife.
The court also found that he had not declared some of the land besides not disclosing nature of some of the land as he had declared them as “agriculture land” even though they were converted for non-agricultural purposes before the filling of nomination papers.
“Merely because Mr. Reddy owns and possesses assets worth several hundred crores cannot be the reason to condone or exempt the mandatory requirement of true and full disclosure of information/details…”, the court said while pointing out that possessing huge amount of wealth cannot be the reason to accept the contention “substantial compliance” of declaration of assets and liabilities merely because the value of undisclosed assets and the outstanding amount due to the Government are comparatively less or insignificant.
“It is one thing to say that for a candidate like Mr. Reddy, who owns assets worth several hundred crores, dues of this nature are insignificant. But it is another thing to view the seriousness of the false declaration, declaring dues as ‘nIL’ by a candidate who is going to occupy high public office for the third time. It is in this perspective, a declaration of municipal property tax dues to be ‘nil’ when indeed they are due and liable to be paid, which impacts the election process,” the court observed.
No default victory
Meanwhile, the court declined to declare C. Muniraju, defeated BJP candidate who had questioned Mr. Reddy’s election, as returned candidate. The court said it it is not possible to presume and form an opinion that all 19,179 votes, which was the victory margin, would have gone in favour Mr. Muniraju when there were 13 other candidates in the fray.
Published – February 18, 2026 12:50 am IST
