Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Void MLA's Election Over Alleged Defects In Asset Disclosure But Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs For Evading Summons
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to set aside the election of Bayana MLA Ritu Banawat in the 2023 Assembly elections over alleged defects in her asset disclosure affidavit filed with the nomination papers, holding that only defects of a substantial character that materially affect the election can warrant invalidation of the electoral mandate. Justice Sudesh Bansal however imposed costs...
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to set aside the election of Bayana MLA Ritu Banawat in the 2023 Assembly elections over alleged defects in her asset disclosure affidavit filed with the nomination papers, holding that only defects of a substantial character that materially affect the election can warrant invalidation of the electoral mandate.
Justice Sudesh Bansal however imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the MLA for evading service of summons and delaying the proceedings.
“Respondent No.1 is an elected Member of Legislative Assembly in General State Assembly Election, 2023 and holds a constitutional position so also can be assumed to be a public figure in her Constituency Bayana, hence, she is not expected to play the game of hide and seek, to evade Court summons and thereby cannot be permitted to dishonor and disregard, the process of law because same would yield bad precedent. Such conduct of respondent No.1 deserves to be deprecated and suitable cost is liable to be imposed upon her,” the bench said.
For context, the Election petition was filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates alleging corrupt practices on the part of the respondent-MLA on account of certain omissions/wrong disclosure of her assets and liabilities in Form-26 to be filed with the Nomination Form. She was alleged to be guilty of concealing material and substantial information.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to Section 36(4) of the Representations of Peoples Act, 1951, (the “Act”) which provides that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which was not of substantial nature.
Further the Court highlighted the interpretation of “corrupt practices” as defined under Section 123 of the Act, and opined that non-disclosure of assets by candidates or providing false information amounted to corrupt practice provided such concealed information had to be of substantial character that had an impact on the candidature of candidate or election's result.
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court case of Ajmera Shyam v Smt. Kova Laxmi and Ors. to highlight that,
“…in cases of non-disclosure of information of assets or any concealment or misrepresentation of particulars of the candidate or false information about the candidate, what is required to be examined by the Court is whether such a defect, of whatsoever nature, on the part of candidate is of a substantial nature or not? and; whether candidate deliberately adopted such practice, with an intent to hide the correct information or provide erroneous information to defraud the voters and other contesting candidates.”
In this background, the Court dealt with all the specific allegation regarding Form-26 of the respondent, and concluded that the petitioner was not able to establish any corrupt practices on part of the respondent.
For instance, the Court opined that non-disclosure of social media accounts in the form was not substantial since the social media accounts were not very secret and were easily traceable and accessible by any person.
Further, the Court also observed that non-disclosure of certain bank accounts that had very less amounts in them was also not a substantial concealment on part of the respondent.
Similarly, all other allegations were also negated by the Court in light of the principles mentioned above, and it was held that an unwarranted interference by the Court with the electoral process on account of insignificant or trivial irregularities and consequent overturning of election results led to erosion of public trust in democratic institutions.
“…will of people, exposed through the election result, should be respected by the Court as well because same is considered as sacrosanct…Although, it is true as well that simultaneously Courts are also under legal obligation to uphold the rule of law and to ensure free and fair elections in the country, so as to maintain the robust electoral system in the country to sustain democracy in India. Thus, a fine balance must be maintained by the Courts.”
The Court also highlighted the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent for avoiding service of summons, and held that being an elected MLA, she was not expected, neither could be permitted to dishonour and disregard the process of law.
Accordingly, while dismissing the election petition, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the respondent for delaying the service of summons by almost 10 months.
Title: Purshottam Lal v Ritu Banawat & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265