Non-substantial Form-26 defects can’t void people’s mandate: Raj HC dismisses poll petition challenging Bayana MLA Ritu Banawat’s election

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of Ritu Banawat, the returned candidate from Constituency Bayana (076), District Bharatpur, in the Rajasthan State Assembly Elections 2023, holding that the alleged defects in her Form-26 affidavit were of a non-substantial and insignificant character that did not amount to corrupt practice under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Justice Sudesh Bansal, presiding over the single bench at the Jaipur Bench, observed that the will of the electorate — expressed through over 1.05 lakh votes in favour of the returned candidate — cannot be lightly set aside on the basis of minor or technical irregularities in disclosure, particularly when the petitioner bore the burden of proving corrupt practice beyond reasonable doubt and failed to discharge it.

“What is required to be kept in mind by the Court is that the will of people, exposed through the election result, should be respected by the Court as well because same is considered as sacrosanct, as conveyed by the latin maxim ‘Vox populi, vox Dei’ i.e. the voice of people and collective wisdom should be respected,” the Court observed.

The election petition was filed by Purushottam Lal, himself a candidate in the said election who secured 689 votes, on Dec 8, 2023 — just five days after the result was declared on Dec 3, 2023. Challenging the election of Ritu Banawat under Sections 80/81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (“RP Act”), Purushottam Lal contended that the returned candidate had failed to disclose complete and correct particulars of her assets and liabilities in Form-26 affidavit filed along with her nomination, and had even left certain columns blank and unfilled. He urged that this amounted to concealment of material information constituting corrupt practice, rendering her nomination liable to cancellation and her election void under Section 100(1)(b) and (d) of the RP Act.

The petitioner raised several specific objections: that Khasra numbers of agricultural lands had been omitted from Form-26; that a plot of land measuring 275 sq. metres at Anupam Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, disclosed in her 2013 nomination, was missing from the 2023 Form-26; that a residential property at New Colony, Roopwas had been concealed; and that income from transportation and shares was not disclosed. Alongside, the petitioner also sought cancellation of the nomination forms of the remaining nine contesting candidates — respondent Nos. 2 to 10 — and prayed to be declared as the sole surviving and hence unopposed elected candidate for the Constituency.

Respondent No.1 answered each objection with documentary evidence. The Jaipur plot had been agreed to be sold via an agreement to sale dated Oct 10, 2023 — before the nomination was filed on Nov 4, 2023 — and Form-26 contains no column requiring disclosure of properties agreed to be sold. The New Colony, Roopwas property was shown to be the self-acquired property of her mother-in-law, not an ancestral or HUF property, supported by a registered sale deed. The discrepancy in agricultural land measurement was attributed to a minor miscalculation in conversion of units between Bigha, Hectare and Acre, which the Court found bore no nexus to the object of disclosure. The income of Rs. 6,670 from shares and savings omitted from Form-26 was held to be negligible. Columns alleged to have been left blank were found, upon examination, to pertain to entries where either a zero entry was logically implied or the applicable response had duly been filled.

The Court placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi [(2026) 3 SCC 373], which clarified that the obligation to disclose assets in Form-26 arises not from any statutory provision in the RP Act itself, but from the judicially-evolved requirement embedded in Form 26 under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court held in that case that “disclosure of information about assets and educational qualification were attending requirements intended to improve the quality of the electoral process and the elected members, for which no specific statutory provision has been made in the Act.” The benchmark for voiding an election on grounds of asset non-disclosure must accordingly be calibrated with this context and cannot be treated at par with non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, which carries an explicit statutory mandate under Section 33A of the RP Act.

The Court further quoted the Ajmera Shyam dictum on the duty of courts when faced with challenges to the popular mandate:

“A fine balance must be struck between holding free and fair election — which involves the fundamental right of voters to have information about the candidates — and maintaining the sanctity of the mandate of the voters upon the declaration of the result. After all, election result is the embodiment of the will of the people expressed through the exercise of the constitutional right of the people to vote. The court, therefore, must keep in mind that declaring an election void solely for non-disclosure of assets, if it lacks substantiality, could undermine the validity of the popular mandate. To nullify the choice of the people on a minor technicality and insignificant non-disclosure of assets by the elected candidate, would have serious repercussions on the democratic process.”

The Court also noted that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in nature, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt — not merely on the preponderance of probabilities — and the petitioner failed to discharge this burden on any of the grounds raised. The Court reiterated that ordinarily the success of a winning candidate should not be lightly interfered with unless the electoral process is found to be vitiated by gross irregularities that undermine electoral integrity.

Issues No. 2 and 3, pertaining to cancellation of nominations of the nine other contesting candidates and a consequential declaration of the petitioner as the sole surviving (and thus unopposed elected) candidate, were rendered redundant. The Court noted that even collectively, the votes polled in favour of the petitioner and all other candidates amounted to 86,432, which was less than the 1,05,749 votes secured by respondent No.1 — making adjudication of those issues inconsequential once Issue No. 1 was decided against the petitioner.

However, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon respondent No.1 for flagrantly evading service of court summons for approximately ten months after the election petition was filed. Despite the process server visiting multiple times at her residential and official addresses, summons could not be served. An enquiry through the District Judge confirmed that she had been informed of the proceedings through multiple modes, yet deliberately avoided presence. She was finally served through the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly on Oct 8, 2024, whereupon she appeared through counsel. The Court strongly deprecated the conduct, observing that a sitting MLA “holds a constitutional position” and “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.”

The election petition was dismissed. Respondent No.1 was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) as cost to the petitioner within thirty days. All pending applications were disposed of.

Title: Purushottam Lal v. Ritu Banawat & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Election Petition No. 1/2023

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:23284]

Counsel for petitioner: Purushottam Lal (petitioner in person)

Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Shanker Sharma, Mr. Shrey Gahrana

Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, Ms. Morvi Sharma, Ms. Priyanka Paliwal

Counsel for respondent No.11: Mr. Anurag Sharma, Mr. Akshay Sharma