Jaipur, June 29: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Ritu Banawat as Member of Legislative Assembly from Bayana Constituency in the Rajasthan State Assembly Elections, 2023.
Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the petitioner failed to establish that the alleged defects in the returned candidate’s Form-26 affidavit were of a substantial character or that they amounted to corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
However, while dismissing the election petition, the Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the returned candidate, observing that she had adopted dilatory tactics and evaded service of summons in the election petition for a long period.
Background
The election petition was filed by Purushottam Lal, who was one of the contesting candidates from Bayana Assembly Constituency No. 076 in District Bharatpur.
The petitioner secured 689 votes. Ritu Banawat, respondent No. 1, secured the highest number of votes and was declared the returned candidate from the constituency.
The petitioner challenged her election primarily on the ground that she had allegedly failed to disclose complete and correct particulars of her assets and liabilities in the affidavit filed in Form-26 along with her nomination papers.
The petitioner also challenged the acceptance of nomination forms of the other contesting candidates and prayed that all nominations except his own be cancelled, so that he could be declared elected unopposed.
Allegations Against Returned Candidate
The petitioner alleged that Ritu Banawat had concealed material information in her Form-26 affidavit and had left certain columns blank.
The objections included alleged non-disclosure of social media accounts, bank accounts, deposits, assets, source of income, agricultural land details, immovable properties and liabilities.
It was argued that such non-disclosure violated Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and amounted to corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Legal Framework Considered By Court
The High Court examined the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Sections 33, 33A, 36, 80, 81, 100 and 123.
The Court also considered Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which requires a candidate to file an affidavit in Form-26 at the time of filing nomination.
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments dealing with voters’ right to know, including Association for Democratic Reforms, PUCL, Resurgence India, Krishnamoorthy, Lok Prahari, Karikho Kri and Ajmera Shyam.
The Court noted that disclosure of information by candidates is important because voters have a constitutional right to know relevant particulars of candidates. However, the Court also emphasized that every defect or omission in the nomination form or affidavit cannot automatically result in rejection of nomination or declaration of election as void.
Defect Must Be Substantial
The High Court observed that under Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, a nomination paper cannot be rejected merely on the ground of a defect which is not of substantial character.
The Court held that in cases involving non-disclosure of assets or furnishing of allegedly incorrect information, the Court must examine whether the defect is material and substantial.
The Court further observed that the defect must have some impact on the candidature or the result of the election. A minor, technical or procedural defect cannot be treated as corrupt practice unless it is shown to be deliberate, material and capable of affecting the election.
Non-Disclosure Of Social Media Accounts Not Substantial
One of the petitioner’s objections was that the returned candidate had not disclosed her Facebook and Twitter accounts in Form-26.
The Court noted that the returned candidate had disclosed her mobile number and email ID. It further observed that her social media accounts were traceable by using her name, mobile number or email ID.
The petitioner himself admitted in cross-examination that he had accessed her Facebook and Twitter accounts using her name.
The Court held that no voter or contesting candidate had been produced to show that anyone was misled or that the election was affected by non-disclosure of social media accounts.
Accordingly, the Court held that non-disclosure of social media accounts, in the facts of the case, was not a defect of substantial character.
Non-Disclosure Of Bank Accounts Explained
The petitioner also alleged that the returned candidate had not disclosed two bank accounts, one with SBI and another with Canara Bank.
The returned candidate explained that the SBI account was non-operative and carried only a nominal balance, while the Canara Bank account had been closed before filing of nomination.
The Court noted that the amounts involved were trivial and had also been reflected in income tax records. It held that the non-disclosure could not be treated as deliberate concealment of a substantial asset.
The Court observed that the total movable assets disclosed in Form-26 included the overall value of assets, and the petitioner failed to show that any substantial amount had been concealed.
Husband’s Bank Accounts And Vehicle Valuation
The petitioner also raised objections regarding details of bank accounts of the returned candidate’s husband and valuation of vehicles owned by him.
The Court found that the omission of one digit in a bank account number appeared to be a bona fide human error while writing a long account number by hand.
As regards vehicle valuation, the Court held that the value of vehicles cannot be assessed only on the basis of original purchase bills, especially when the vehicles had been used for years and had depreciated in value.
The petitioner had not produced any market valuation report or reliable evidence to show that the values disclosed were false.
The Court therefore rejected the objection.
Agricultural Land And Immovable Property Objections Rejected
The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate had wrongly mentioned measurement of agricultural land and had failed to disclose certain immovable properties.
The Court accepted the explanation that there was no separate column for khasra numbers in Form-26 and that any error in conversion or measurement of land in bigha, hectare or acre was not substantial.
Regarding one plot at Jaipur, the returned candidate explained that it had already been agreed to be sold before filing nomination. The Court found that there was no specific column in Form-26 for properties agreed to be sold.
The petitioner also alleged that a house at New Colony, Roopwas was an ancestral property of the returned candidate’s husband. The Court rejected the objection after finding that the property belonged to the returned candidate’s mother-in-law and the petitioner had no documentary proof to support his allegation.
Source Of Income Objection Also Rejected
The petitioner argued that the returned candidate had concealed her source of income because Form-26 referred to income from agriculture, while income tax return reflected income from wholesale and retail trade.
The returned candidate explained that agricultural produce was sold both wholesale and retail, and therefore the entries were not inconsistent.
The Court accepted the explanation and held that the objection did not establish concealment of any material information.
Blank Columns Not Treated As Fatal
The petitioner also objected that some columns in Form-26 had allegedly been left blank.
The Court examined the relevant columns and held that they could not be treated as blank in the manner alleged. In some places, the entries were deemed to indicate zero value or were otherwise understandable from the surrounding entries.
The Court held that such objections were inconsequential and insignificant and appeared to have been raised only for the sake of pointing out defects.
Petitioner Failed To Prove Corrupt Practice
The High Court emphasized that allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition must be proved strictly.
The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the returned candidate had deliberately concealed material information, adopted corrupt practice, or that acceptance of her nomination was improper.
The Court also held that the alleged defects did not materially affect the election result.
Accordingly, the Court decided Issue No. 1 against the petitioner and refused to declare the election of Ritu Banawat void.
Challenge To Other Candidates’ Nominations Rendered Redundant
The petitioner had also sought cancellation of nomination forms of other contesting candidates.
The Court noted that even if the nominations of other candidates were cancelled, it would not affect the election of the returned candidate because she had secured more votes than the total votes polled by the petitioner and all other candidates collectively.
Since the Court had already refused to set aside the election of the returned candidate, the issue of cancelling nominations of other candidates was held to be redundant and unwarranted.
The prayer to declare the petitioner elected unopposed was also rejected.
Court Deprecates Returned Candidate’s Conduct
Although the election petition was dismissed, the High Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the returned candidate in avoiding service of summons.
The Court noted that the election petition was filed on 08.12.2023 and summons were issued on 22.12.2023, but the returned candidate appeared for the first time through counsel only on 10.10.2024.
The Court observed that she was an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly and a public figure, and was not expected to play “hide and seek” with court summons.
The Court held that such conduct dishonoured the process of law and could set a bad precedent.
₹1 Lakh Cost Imposed
The Court imposed cost of ₹1,00,000 on Ritu Banawat, payable to the election petitioner within 30 days.
The cost was imposed for delaying and deterring the proceedings by evading service of summons for a long period.
Election Petition Dismissed
In conclusion, the High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any ground for cancellation of the returned candidate’s nomination or for declaring her election void.
The election petition was accordingly dismissed.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates that disclosure requirements in Form-26 are important and are connected with the voters’ right to know. However, every omission, technical mistake or minor discrepancy in Form-26 will not automatically invalidate an election.
For an election to be declared void, the defect must be material, substantial and shown to have affected the candidature or election result, or must amount to corrupt practice proved strictly in accordance with law.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that an elected representative cannot evade court summons and delay election proceedings, and such conduct may invite costs even where the election petition ultimately fails.