The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an election petition filed against Hanumangarh MLA Ganeshraj Bansal, stating that once the police have filed a negative final report in criminal cases, there is no requirement to disclose those cases in the nomination form.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, delivering the order, noted:
“Once the police has filed negative Final Report, the candidate furnishing nomination paper is not required to give particulars of those cases.”
The Court made it clear that the petitioner failed to bring forward any legal provision or precedent that mandates disclosure of such cases after the police give a clean chit.
The petitioner alleged that Bansal did not disclose some pending criminal cases and his nomination form lacked his signature on the back of the stamp paper. However, the Court held that merely enclosing final reports was not enough. It emphasized that election petitions require specific and clear pleadings, especially when challenging an elected candidate.
“Election petition is not a luxury litigation... vague allegations cannot be the basis for a fishing and roving enquiry.”
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Stays Interim Relief to Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in Copyright Case Against AR Rahman
The Court also noted that the petitioner did not provide important details like FIR numbers, names of complainants, or police stations related to the cases. This lack of detail made the petition inadequate under Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The case was titled Amit v Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors., and the petition was challenged on two main grounds:
- The petitioner wrongly cited the "Conduct of Election Rules, 1967" instead of the correct 1961 Rules.
- The petitioner failed to meet the precision required under Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Reserves Verdict on Plea Seeking 'Martyr' Status for Pahalgam Attack Victims
While the Court overlooked the wrong citation of the year in the rules as a minor error, it accepted the second objection and held the petition lacking due to vague and unspecific allegations.
“The petitioner has neither brought to the Court’s notice any statutory provision nor any precedent which enjoins upon a candidate to furnish information even in those cases wherein the police has given him a clean chit.”
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Clarifies 'Constructive Res Judicata' Also Applies To Writ Petitions
Additionally, the issue regarding the absence of a signature on the back of the stamp paper was dismissed as irrelevant. The Court clarified that no details were filled on that backside and hence, it could not be considered part of the form.
“Absence of sign of the respondent No.1 does not invalidate the form... such page cannot be treated to be a part of Form No.3.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Karim Uddin Barbuhiya vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors., reinforcing the principle that election petitions must strictly meet legal requirements, failing which they are liable to be rejected.
Case Title: Amit v Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors.
