The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Bayana MLA Ritu Banawat, holding that not every omission or discrepancy in a candidate's nomination affidavit is sufficient to invalidate an election. The Court said that only defects of a material and substantial nature, capable of affecting the election or misleading voters, can justify setting aside an election under the Representation of the People Act.
Background of the Case
The election petition was filed by Purushottam Lal, one of the candidates in the 2023 Rajasthan Assembly election from Bayana (Constituency No. 76), Bharatpur. He had secured 689 votes, while returned candidate Ritu Banawat received 1,05,749 votes.
The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate had not fully disclosed her assets and liabilities in Form-26, had left certain columns incomplete, and had concealed material information. Based on these allegations, he sought cancellation of her nomination and declaration of her election as void. He also challenged the nominations of the remaining contesting candidates and sought to be declared elected unopposed.
Court's Observations
Justice Sudesh Bansal examined the statutory scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and several Supreme Court precedents governing disclosure requirements in election affidavits.
The Court reiterated that voters have a constitutional right to know relevant information about candidates and that disclosure of assets and liabilities promotes transparency in the electoral process. However, it clarified that every omission does not automatically amount to a corrupt practice or justify invalidating an election.
Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, the Court observed:
“The Court must determine whether there was substantial compliance with the legal requirements, or if the deficiency was merely technical or procedural, before the Court proceeds to interfere with the election.”
The High Court further held that while non-disclosure of material information may attract serious consequences, the Court must examine each allegation on its own facts to determine whether the omission was substantial enough to affect the candidate's eligibility, the voters' right to information, or the election result.
Findings in the Present Case
After analysing each objection raised by the petitioner, the Court concluded that the alleged defects in the nomination papers and Form-26 affidavit did not establish any material concealment warranting cancellation of the returned candidate's election.
The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove any ground under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act for declaring the election void. It also rejected the challenge to the nominations of the other contesting candidates.
Decision
Dismissing the election petition, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any legally sustainable ground for cancelling the nomination or declaring the election of Ritu Banawat as MLA from Bayana void.
While rejecting the petition, the Court directed respondent No. 1 to pay ₹1 lakh as costs to the petitioner within thirty days, observing that the delay in accepting service of summons had unnecessarily prolonged the election proceedings.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Purushottam Lal v. Ritu Banawat & Others
Case Number: S.B. Election Petition No. 1/2023
Judge: Justice Sudesh Bansal
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
