MEMORANDUM

‘AMIT SHAH’S FALSE AFFIDAVIT’

April 5th, 2019

Ref: oo15A/2019

INDEX

SL.NO Particulars Page

No.s

1. Representation on BJP President, Amit Shah’s false

affidavit.

2. Annexure 1:
Copies of Amit Shah’s Affidavit filed for the upcoming
Lok Sabha Elections

3. Annexure 2:
Copy of Lok Prahari Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
 MEMORANDUM
April 5th , 2019

Ref. No: 0015A/2019

To,

Chief Election Commissioner &

His Companion Election Commission of India,

The Election Commission of India,

Nirvachan Sadan
New Delhi-110001,

Dear Sir,

RE: NON-DISCLOSURE OF LIABILITIES BY SHRI. AMIT SHAH

REQUEST FOR URGENT AND NECESSARY INTERVENTION

AGAINST DELIBERATE, CORRUPT AND WILFUL NON–
DISCLOSURE OF LIABILITIES BY SHRI. AMIT SHAH, MEMBER OF
PARLIAMENT, RAJYA SABHA IN HIS ELECTION AFFIDAVIT FOR
THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTIONS.

This is to bring to your urgent attention a matter of grave importance for your
immediate action.

I.

As you are aware, Section 75A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951
mandates all Members of Parliament are required to file an affidavit, declaring
their criminal records (if any), their assets & liabilities and educational
qualifications prior to contesting any election.

This mandatory requirement is further elaborated upon in The Members of

Lok Sabha (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Rules, 2004 made under
the aforementioned Section 75A of the 1951 Act. Rule 3(1) (ii) of the 2004
Rules expressly includes ‘his liabilities to any public financial institution’.

In fact, the Hon’ble Commission may note, even after getting elected to Rajya
Sabha in 2017, Amit Shah did not comply with the requirement of filing an
honest declaration of assets and liabilities with the Chairman of Rajya Sabha
within ninety days of his election (Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of the 2004 Rajya
Sabha Rules).

It is clear from an examination of section 75A of the Representation of Peoples

Act, 1951 and the 2004 Rules that the requirement is mandatory with
any wilful contravention of the same, inviting strict action.

II.

It has come to light that Mr. Amit Shah, contesting for Gandhinagar Lok
Sabha seat has once again filed a false affidavit with two glaring omissions.

First, with regard to a plot in Gandhinagar and; Second, with regard to loans
taken from a Commercial Bank by his son for which he is the guarantor.

As per reports, Mr. Shah has undervalued the property which as per the the
Government guidelines is market valued at (at least) Rs. 66.5 Lakhs but Mr.
Amit Shah has declared its value at Rs. 25 Lakhs.

It’s necessary to mention here that Mr. Shah who was nominated to Rajya
Sabha as a Member of Parliament in 2017, had on that occasion, also wilfully
and deliberately concealed significant liabilities from his declaration at the
time. Since no action was taken, he has taken it upon himself to repeat the
violation in a more brazen manner this time.

At the time of filing his nomination papers for the upcoming Lok Sabha
elections Mr. Amit Shah had already mortgaged two of his properties (in
2016) to Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank (one of Gujarat’s largest
Cooperative Banks) for his son Jay Shah’s business venture Kusum Finserve
LLP. The properties were mortgaged in lieu of a large and
substantial loan of Rupees 25 crores extended by the bank to his
son’s company.
It is therefore a fact, that the properties are mortgaged to Kalupur Commercial
Cooperative Bank and hence constitute a liability that should have been
declared. Attention of the Commission is drawn to Section 75A(5)(iv)(e) of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 which expressly includes commercial
banks as public financial institutions vis-à-vis outstanding liabilities have to
be disclosed1.

It must also be pointed out that section 128 of the Indian Contract Act 1872
defines the liability of the Surety (in this case Mr. Amit Shah) as
coextensive with the person/body corporate taking the loan2.

The two inescapable conclusions one draws from the above is (i) that Mr. Shah
was bound by statute to disclose the liability especially since a cooperative
bank falls within the ambit of the relevant section; and (ii) Mr. Shah’s liability
vis-à-vis the loan is co-extensive with his sons undertaking and cannot be
evaded by defining the same as a ‘contingent liability’.

III.

The fact that this omission of liabilities is deliberate and not inadvertent is
clearly established considering that Mr. Amit Shah did not rectify or update
the record despite being a Rajya Sabha MP for almost two years and has
repeated the act of omission in his Lok Sabha Affidavit as well.

This would attract several criminal provisions under the existing laws and
precedent as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Firstly, such non-disclosure of assets and liabilities, as held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Lok Prahari vs. Union of India
(2018)3, would constitute a corrupt practice of ‘undue influence’ as

1 Section 75A(5)(iv)-RoPA, 1951- “bank” referred to in clause (iii) means— (e) “Co-
operative bank having the meaning assigned to it in clause (cci) of section 5 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) as modified by sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of section 56 of
that Act”

2 Section 128-Indian Contract Act, 1872: “Surety’s liability—The liability of the surety is

co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.”
3 (2018) SCC Online SC 128
defined under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the Peoples
Act, 1951.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Lok Prahari has relied on its earlier decision in
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others, (2015)4 which reasoned that such
non-disclosure would amount to the corrupt practice of undue influence as:

“there is an attempt to suppress, effort to misguide and

keep the people in dark. This attempt undeniably and
undisputedly is undue influence and, therefore,
amounts to corrupt practice.”

Secondly, the act of wilful non-disclosure by the Member of Parliament in his

affidavit amounts to the offence of ‘filing of false affidavit’ under
Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such an
offence is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment, or with fine, or with
both.

It is therefore clear that the offence in question is not a minor one but instead
a serious act of corruption through wilful and deliberate suppression.

IV.

The Election Commission of India must take immediate note of this and
initiate appropriate proceedings to disqualify Mr. Amit Shah’s from contesting
the upcoming elections.

Further, the ECI must initiate proceedings against Mr. Amit Shah for the filing
of a false affidavit, which attracts up to six months’ imprisonment, and/or a
fine.

We hope the Commission treats this matter with the attention that it deserves
and initiates immediate action to take the issue forward.

Warm Regards,

4 (2015) 3 SCC 467