PURUSHOTTAM LAL S/O SHRI CHARANSINGH vs RITU BANAWAT W/O SHRI RISHI BANSAL,

[2026:RJ-JP:23284]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Election Petition No. 1/2023
Purushottam Lal S/o Shri Charansingh, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o- Sirsoda, Roopbaas, Tehsil And Post Office- Roopbaas,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Pin 321404, Mobile No.
8058252616, Email [email protected]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o- Makan No. 159, Gandhi Sewa Sadan Lal Bagh,
Nagarpalika -Bayana, Tehsil -Bayana, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan,) Mobile No. 9414261862
2. Bachchusingh S/o Shri Kanchansingh, Aged About 44
Years, R/o- Basai, Post- Banshi Paharpur, Tehsil
Roopbaas, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). Mobile
No.7891012126, 9810211751
3. Amarsingh S/o Shri Sukhram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o-
Basai, Post -Banshi Paharpur, Tehsil Roopbaas, District-
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Mobile No. 9828039468,
9358321341
4. Mukesh S/o Shri Bhagwansingh, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o- Rudawal, District- Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Mobile No.
9587203632
5. Madanmohan S/o Shri Vedariya, R/o -Gram And Post-
Khedathakur, Tehsil Roopbaas, District-Bharatpur
(Rajasthan), Mobile No. 7073648625
6. Munniram S/o Shri Bhabuti, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Singhrawali, Post-Kot, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur
(Rajasthan), Mobile No 9694883495
7. Neetu Sejwal D/o Shri Premsingh, R/o- Lal Darwaja,
Purani Sabji Mandi Bayana, Tehsil- Bayana, District-
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Mobile No. 7014941326
8. Vijaysingh S/o Shri Mangal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o -
Jasora, Post- Kotthana, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan, Mobile No. 9461747066)
9. Ajaysingh S/o Shri Kanchansingh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o-Basai, Post- Banshi Paharpur, Tehsil-Roopbaas,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), 7610012221, 7891012126
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(2 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
10. Sudesh Kumari W/o Shri Nawalsingh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o-Nagla Baretha, Post-Bandh Baretha, Tehsil-
Bayana, District -Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Mobile No.
7073515372
11. Nirwachan Adhikari And Upkhand Magistrate, Rajasthan
Vidhansabha Nirwachan 2023, Vidhansabha Bayana
(076), District- Bharatpur (Rajasthan)- 321401
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purushottam Lal, petitioner in
person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Mr. Utkarsh Dubey,
Mr. Siddharth Shanker Sharma,
Mr. Shrey Gahrana for respondent
No.1
Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal with
Ms. Morvi Sharma,
Ms. Priyanka Paliwal for respondent
No.3
Mr. Shivam Kumar Sharma for
respondent No.7
Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma for
respondents No.2 & 9
Mr. Anurag Sharma,
Mr. Akshay Sharma for respondent
No.11
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 25.05.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was
reserved
25.05.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only
operative part is pronounced
Full
4. Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026
REPORTABLE
1. This election petition has directly been filed before the High
Court under Section 80/81 of the Representation of People Act,
1951 (for short “RP Act”) which is triable by the High Court as per
Section 80-A of the RP Act.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(3 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
2. Through this election petition, petitioner seeks to challenge
election of respondent No.1 as a Member of Legislative Assembly
(MLA), Bayana (Constituency No. 076) District Bharatpur in
General Rajasthan State Assembly Elections, 2023. Petitioner was
one of the contesting candidate, out of total eleven candidates
who contested election for MLA in Bayana, Constituency No. 76
and secured 689 votes. Respondent No.1 got 105749 votes and
was declared returned candidate for this Constituency. Other nine
candidates, in total received 85743 votes and they have also been
made party respondents No. 2 to 10 herein this petition.
Respondent No.11 is Returning Officer-cum-Sub Divisional
Magistrate, who declared the result of election on 03.12.2023.
Thereafter, this election petition came to be filed by petitioner on
08.12.2023.
3. Challenge to the election of respondent No.1 has been
fundamentally made by petitioner on the ground that respondent
No.1 did not disclose the complete and correct
information/particulars of her assets and liabilities, in the
prescribed affidavit Form-26, rather also left certain columns blank
and unfilled, hence, thereby she be held guilty of concealing the
material and substantial information, which amounts to adopting
corrupt practices, as such her nomination form is liable to be
cancelled and consequentially, her election as MLA of Constituency
Bayana declared on 03.12.2023, be declared void under Section
100 (1)(b)&(d) of the RP Act.
4. Simultaneously, a challenge has also been made by
petitioner to the acceptance of nomination forms of other nine
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(4 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
contesting candidates of this Constituency Bayana (Respondents
Nos.2 to 10 herein) on various grounds.
5. The submission of petitioner is that nomination forms of
respondents No.1 to 10 suffer from several defects and were
improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. The Final prayer of
petitioner is that the nomination forms of respondents No.1 to 10,
be cancelled and since thereafter, petitioner remains the only
surviving candidate who, being unopposed by any other candidate,
be declared a Returned Candidate and MLA of the Constituency
Bayana in the General Rajasthan State Assembly Elections – 2023.
6. Reply to the election petition has been filed by Returning
Candidate-respondent No.1 so also a separate reply has been filed
by respondent No.3. No other respondents including Returning
Officer, has opted to file a reply to the election petition.
Respondents Nos.5, 6, 8 and 10 have been set ex parte. Relevant
order-sheet to this effect is of dated 28.11.2024.
7. As per pleadings of parties, this Court on 19.12.2024 framed
following issues, which were accepted by counsel for both parties
agreeing that the framed issues encompass all the points involved
and raised here in this election petition. Issues are:-
“(I) Whether facts and grounds or any of the ground
enumerated in sub paras (1) to (13) of para No.5 of the
Election Petition, attract the grounds envisaged under
Section 100 (1)(b), 100 (1)(d)(i) and 100 (1)(d)(iv) of
the Representation of the People Act,1951 and violate
Rule 4A of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,which
entail either for rejection of nomination form of
respondent No.1-returning candidate or to declare her
election dated 03.12.2023 as Member of Legislative
Assembly of Constituency-Bayana (076) as void?
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(5 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
(II) Whether as per the facts and grounds enumerated
in para Nos.6 to 14 of the Election Petition, the
nomination forms of respondents No.2 to 10 were
improperly accepted by the returning officer and same
are liable to be rejected or their candidature to contest
the Elections-2023, for Member of Legislative Assembly
of Constituency-Bayana (076) is liable to be cancelled?
(III) Whether, if issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour
of petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to be declared as
unopposed elected Member of Legislative Assembly of
Constituency-Bayana(076) for Elections-2023?
(IV) Relief. ”
8. Petitioner, in his evidence, produced his affidavit as
evidence-in-chief and exhibited 167 documents. He has
thoroughly been cross-examined by counsel for respondent No.1-
Returned Candidate, so also by counsel for respondent No.3 and
respondent Nos.2 & 9. Petitioner did not opt to produce any other
evidence or witness and he closed his evidence. In rebuttal,
respondent No.1-Returned Candidate, submitted her affidavit as
evidence-in-chief whereupon she has also been thoroughly cross-
examined by the petitioner. On behalf of respondent No.1,
documents Exhibit A/1 to A/6 have been placed on record and
then respondent No.1 also closed her evidence. No other
respondent chose to produce evidence. After conclusion of
evidence of parties, final verbal arguments have been heard at
length and in addition thereto, petitioner and respondent No.1
have also submitted their respective written submissions along
with reference to numerous case laws therein. Counsels appearing
for respondent No.3 and respondent Nos.2 & 9 also put forth their
verbal submissions.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(6 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
9. This Court carefully scanned the pleadings and evidence of
parties so also gone through the case laws referred and relied
upon by both sides as indicated in their respective written
submissions and keenly pondered over the submissions made by
petitioner in person and respective counsels, appearing for
respondents.
10. At the outset, it is noteworthy that RP Act prescribes a
comprehensive framework for the conduct of elections to the
Parliament and State Assemblies so also provides the
qualifications and disqualifications for membership, corrupt
practices and other offences connected with elections, and the
procedure for resolving doubts and disputes arising therefrom.
It may be noted here that, in order to implement the
provisions of RP Act, the Government has also framed Rules in
consultation with the Election Commission, invoking powers
envisaged under Section 169 of the Act, known as “The Conduct of
Elections Rules, 1961” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of
1961”).
11. Section 33 of the RP Act, talks about presentation of
nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.
Section 33A stipulates a mandate requiring a candidate to furnish
information about criminal cases, if any, ensuring right to
information of citizens. Section 33B, as it was, postulates that a
candidate shall not be liable to disclose or furnish any such
information, in respect of his election, which is not required to be
disclosed under the Act or the Rules, but it is worthwhile to note
that this Section was later declared invalid and void, for being
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(7 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
contrary to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Section 36
deals with the scrutiny of nomination. Section 75A deals with
declaration of assets and liabilities by the elected candidate after
election. Section 80 to 84 contains provisions governing the
presentation of an election petition to the High Court and Section
86 to 107 deals with the conduct of the trial of an election
petition. Section 100 envisages grounds on which the election can
be declared void.
12. It may be noted here that Section 33A and 33B, were
inserted in the RP Act by way of the Representation of the People
(Third Amendment) Act, 2002 and Rule 4A was added to the
Rules, as an upshot of the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Union of India Vs. Association for
Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294] . Although, later on
vires of Section 33B came to be challenged and this Section was
declared null and void by the Apex Court in an another case of
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India
[(2003) 4 SCC 399], because Section 33B was found to be in
conflict to the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Association for Democratic Reform’s case (supra). For ready
reference, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 33A and 33B
and Rule 4A hereunder:-
“ 33A. Right to information. —(1) A candidate shall,
apart from any information which he is required to furnish,
under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his
nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) or
section 33, also furnish the information as to whether
(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with
imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(8 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
in which a charge has been framed by the court of
competent jurisdiction;
(ii) he has been convicted of an offence [other than any
offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8] and
sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.
(2) The candidate of his proposer, as the case may be,
shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the
nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33, also
deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a
prescribed form very fine the information specified in sub-
section (1).
(3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the
furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1),
display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the
affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous
place at his office for the information of the electors
relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper
is delivered.
33B. Candidate to furnish information only under the
Act and the rules. —Notwithstanding anything contained
in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any
direction, order or any other instruction issued by the
Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to
disclose or furnish any such information, in respect of his
election which is not required to be disclosed or furnished
under this Act or the rules made thereunder.
(Now declared void)
4A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of
delivering nomination paper. —The candidate or his
proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of
delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper
under sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Act, also deliver
to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate before a
Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is further noteworthy that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
revisited its previous decisions rendered in case of Association for
Democratic Reform’s (supra) and PUCL’s case (supra), in a
subsequent judgment delivered in case of Resurgence India Vs.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(9 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
Election Commission of India & Anr. [(2014) 14 SCC 189]
wherein while clarifying the importance of mentioning of the
information as required in the Form-26 affidavit, following
directions were issued by the Supreme Court, which are
incorporated in Para No. 29 of the judgment and read as follows:-
“ 29. What emerges from the above discussion can be
summarized in the form of following directions:
29.1. The voter has the elementary right to know full
particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in
the Parliament/Assemblies and such right to get
information is universally recognized. Thus, it is held
that right to know about the candidate is a natural
right flowing from the concept of democracy and is
an integral part of   Article 19(1)(a)   of the
Constitution.
29.2. The ultimate purpose of filing of affidavit along with
the nomination paper is to effectuate the
fundamental right of the citizens under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution of India. The citizens are
supposed to have the necessary information at the
time of filing of nomination paper and for that
purpose, the Returning Officer can very well compel
a candidate to furnish the relevant information.
29.3. Filing of affidavit with blank particulars will render
the affidavit nugatory.
29.4 It is the duty of the Returning Officer to check
whether the information required is fully furnished
at the time of filing of affidavit with the nomination
paper since such information is very vital for giving
effect to the ‘right to know’ of the citizens. If a
candidate fails to fill the blanks even after the
reminder by the Returning Officer, the nomination
paper is fit to be rejected. We do comprehend that
the power of Returning Officer to reject the
nomination paper must be exercised very sparingly
but the bar should not be laid so high that the
justice itself is prejudiced.
29.5. We clarify to the extent that Para 73 of People’s
Union for Civil Liberties case (supra) will not come
in the way of the Returning Officer to reject the
nomination paper when affidavit is filed with blank
particulars.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(10 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
29.6. The candidate must take the minimum effort to
explicitly remark as ‘NIL’ or ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not
known’ in the columns and not to leave the
particulars blank.
29.7. Filing of affidavit with blanks will be directly hit by
Section 125-A(i) of the RP Act. However, as the
nomination paper itself is rejected by the Returning
Officer, we find no reason why the candidate must
be again penalized for the same act by prosecuting
him/her.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. The proposition of law and ratio decidendi expounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Resurgence India (supra) has
been repeatedly followed and reiterated in Krishnamoorthy Vs.
Sivakumar & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 467] and Public Interest
Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India [(2019) 3 SCC 224] .
The Para No.76 of the judgment passed in Krishnamoorthy’s case
(supra) reads as under:-
“The singular question is, if a candidate, while filing his
nomination paper does not furnish the entire information
what would be the resultant effect. In Resurgence India
(supra), the Court has held that if a nomination paper is
filed with particulars left blank, the Returning Officer is
entitled to reject the nomination paper. The Court has
proceeded to state that candidate must take the
minimum effort to explicitly remark as 'Nil' or 'Not
Applicable' or 'Not known' in the columns. In the said
case, it has been clarified that para 73 of People's Union
for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case will not come in the way of
Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper when
the affidavit has been filed with blank particulars. It is
necessary to understand what has been stated in para
73 of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case, how
it has been understood and clarified in Resurgence
India”
(emphasis supplied)
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(11 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
15. Petitioner apart from referring several judgments including
mentioned hereinabove, has also referred and relied upon two
judgments of Hon’ble High Court. One delivered by the Hon’ble
Manipur High Court in case of Shri Mayanglambam Rameshwar
Singh Vs. Shri Yengkhom Surchandra Singh & Ors. decided
on 05.11.2020 [MANU/MN/0113/2020] , wherein election of
candidate was declared void. Para Nos.37 and 44 of the judgment
reads as under:-
“37. The right of the voters to know of the relevant
particulars of the candidates is very important as
ultimately it is the voters who decide the fate of the
candidates who will periodically exercise the political
power. A citizen of this country has a fundamental
right to receive information regarding the criminal
activities of a candidate of the Parliament or the Lok
Sabha or the Legislative Assemblies so as to make his
choice effective and meaningful.
44. From the above decision, what transpires is that
there is need to insist disclosure of assets and
liabilities of the elected candidate together with those
of the spouse or dependent children and the
Parliament ought to have made a provision for
furnishing this information at the time of filing the
nomination. Failure to do so has resulted in the
violation of guarantee under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. Further, the inference which can
be drawn is that failure to furnish information as
regards the non-disclosure of correct assets and
liabilities by a candidate would be a serious lapse on
the part of the candidate, as it would violate the right
of the voters.”
(emphasis supplied)
Another judgment is of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case
of Smt. S. Rukmini Madegowda Vs. The State Election
Commission and Ors. delivered on 26.05.2021, which has been
stated to be affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and wherein
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(12 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
as well, the election of elected candidate was declared void. Para
No.103 of the judgment reads as under:-
“103. If the purpose of disclosing all assets and
liabilities is to ensure that the voter's fundamental
right of information guaranteed under   Article 19 (1)
(a)   of the Constitution of India to be informed of the
complete details of the candidates contesting for
election, then, obviously the non disclosure of the
assets would be a direct contravention of this
fundamental right, which can   neither be overlooked,
ignored nor condoned. Thus, the argument of a bona
fide error or the act being unintentional cannot be
accepted in the case of an allegation of corrupt
practice.”
Several other judgments of other High Courts referred by
petitioner in his written submissions are mere multiplication of
case laws and do not expound any additional or new proposition.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently in case of Ajmera
Shyam Vs. Smt. Kova Laxmi and Ors. [(2026) 3 SCC 373] ,
having wade through several previous decisions, has concluded
and observed that the right to know full particulars of the
candidates is also a vital part of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. In this judgment, in respect of the
requirement of disclosure of the Assets and Educational
Qualification in Form-26 affidavit, it has finally been held and
observed in Para Nos. 8.23, 8.24, 8.25, 9.5, 9.6 & 9.7 which read
as under:-
“ 8.23 It is significant to note that Section 33A of the
Act referred to above, introduced in the year 2002
pursuant to the decision of this Court in Association
for Democratic Reforms (supra), which mandatorily
requires disclosure of criminal antecedents of the
candidate does not provide for disclosure of assets and
educational qualifications.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(13 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
The requirement of disclosure of the assets and
education qualification is to be found not on any
Section/provision of the Act, but in the Form 26 Affidavit
required to be filed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961. Rule 4A merely provides that the
candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at
the time of delivering to the Returning Officer the
nomination paper also deliver to him an affidavit sworn
by the candidate before a Magistrate or a Notary in
Form 26.
8.24 Reference to the said judicial discourse is essential
to appreciate that the obligation to disclose information
regarding criminal antecedents, assets and educational
qualifications has been shaped and strengthened
through judicial directions to promote transparency in
the electoral process. These requirements, as
incorporated into the relevant rules, are thus a result of
judicial evolution complementing the existing legislative
framework, rather than arising solely from an original
statutory mandate.
8.25 This foray into judicial pronouncements provides
the contextual perspective of the requirement to provide
information about assets of the candidates in
contradistinction to the requirement to disclose the
criminal antecedents, and how the issue should be dealt
with by the courts.
9.5 However, regarding voidance of the election of the
returned candidates due to non-disclosure of assets, it is
not explicitly stated in the Act. It has become part of
election law through judicial intervention and it is to be
mentioned as part of the Form 26 Affidavit filed during
the nomination process, as discussed above.
9.6. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that
considering the evolution of law concerning disclosure of
information relating to criminal antecedents and assets
and the "raison d'etre" for the same, these
considerations cannot be placed at the same pedestal.
By its very nature, the requirement to disclose criminal
antecedents has to be examined more scrupulously and
dealt with more strictly as the involvement of criminals
is a bane in our electoral system, which was the prime
focus of judicial intervention which is reflected in the
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(14 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
insertion of Section 33A of the Act. On the other hand,
disclosure of information about assets and educational
qualification were attending requirements to improve
the quality of the electoral process and the elected
members for which no specific statutory provision has
been made in the Act, but forms part of the information
required to be mentioned in the Form 26 Affidavit in
terms of Rule 4A.
9.7. Certainly, there was concern also about assets
when it was noticed that apart from criminal acts of the
candidates, money was being misused by the candidates
to influence the voters. Further, it was also observed
that there is a tendency of the elected members to
misuse their official positions to enrich themselves at
the expense of public funds while in office. It is for these
reasons that it was felt that candidates must disclose
their assets when seeking re-election.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. It has clearly been noted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
decision of Ajmera Shyam’s case (supra) 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, but which forms
part of the information required to be mentioned in Form-26
affidavit in terms of Rule 4A. The purpose of disclosure of assets
and liabilities of the candidate is not to associate the same with
the prospect or eligibility of his candidature or his capacity to
spend money in the electoral process, but primarily to evaluate at
a specific point in time after the election, whether there has been
a disproportionate increase in wealth by misusing official position
and by self aggrandizement.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(15 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
18. The Rule 4A of the Rules of 1961, provides that the
candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, at the time of
delivering the nomination form under Section 33(1) of the RP Act,
to the Returning Officer, shall also deliver to him an affidavit sworn
by the candidate before a Magistrate of First Class or a Notary
Public in Form-26.
19. Section 36 of the RP Act, deals with scrutiny of nomination.
Scrutiny of nomination papers shall be made by Returning Officer
and after examining the nomination papers of the candidate, if
any objections are noticed either on his own motion or on raising
any objection, it is for the Returning Officer to decide all
objections. Nevertheless, it is envisaged under Sub Section 4 of
Section 36 that “ the Returning Officer shall not reject any
nomination paper on the ground of any defect, which is not of a
substantial character ”. Meaning thereby, the statutory mandate is
that, if the defect in nomination papers is not considered to be of
material and substantial character, the nomination cannot be
rejected by the Returning Officer and acceptance of even such
defective nomination cannot be held to be improper.
20. Section 100 of the RP Act deals with the grounds for
declaring an election to be void. It would not be out of place to
reproduce Section 100 here for ready reference, as under:-
“ 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. —[(1)
Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High Court]
is of opinion—
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate
was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to
fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act [or the
Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of
1963)]; or
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(16 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a
returned candidate or his election agent or by any
other person with the consent of a returned candidate
or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a
returned candidate, has been materially affected—
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of
the returned candidate [by an agent other than his
election agent], or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any
vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non—compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders
made under this Act, [the High Court] shall declare
the election of the returned candidate to be void.]
[(2)] If in the opinion of [the High Court], a returned candidate
has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of
any corrupt practice but [the High Court] is satisfied— *
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the
election by the candidate or his election agent, and
every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to
the orders, and [without the consent], of the candidate
or his election agent;
[ ]*
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all
reasonable means for preventing the commission of
corrupt practices at the election; and*
(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any
corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any*
of his agents, then [the High Court] may decide that
the election of the returned candidate is not void.”

21. In this election petition, petitioner has invoked ground of
corrupt practices, to seek declaration of election of respondent
No.1 as null and void. “Corrupt Practice” is defined under Section
123 of the RP Act. Sub Sections 2 & 4 of Section 123 are relevant
here in his petition, which stipulates as under:-
“ Sub Sections (2) & (4) of Section 123 :
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(17 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect
interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the
candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the
consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the
free exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that—
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
of this clause any such person as is referred to
therein who—
(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any
person in whom a candidate or an elector
interested, with injury of any kind including social
ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from
any caste or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an
elector to believe that he, or any person in whom
he is interested, will become or will be rendered an
object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure,
shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise
of the electoral right of such candidate or elector
within the meaning of this clause;
(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public
action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without
intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be
deemed to be interference within the meaning of this
clause.
(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by
any other person with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent, of any statement of fact which is false,
and which he either believes to be false or does not
believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or
conduct of any candidate or in relation to the
candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a
statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the
prospects of that candidate’s election.”
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its various decisions, has held
and observed that non-disclosure of assets by candidates and/or
their spouse and dependents or providing false or misleading
information or concealing the correct information, which are not
found to be in conformity with the provisions of RP Act and Rules,
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(18 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
would certainly entail rendering the acceptance of the nomination
papers improper and such kind of non-disclosure or declaration of
false information has been held to amount to a corrupt practice,
which attracts Section 100(1)(b) & (d) to declare the election void.
The caveat is that the non-disclosure of assets or the nature
of providing erroneous information or hiding the correct
information must be of a material and substantial character that
would have an impact on the candidature of candidate or on the
result of an election.
23. In case of Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India [(2018) 4 SCC
699] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the legal and
contextual position regarding non-disclosure of assets as
amounting to a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Act.
The relevant portion and paragraphs of judgment are as under:-
“ 79. We shall now deal with Prayer 2 which seeks a
declaration that non- disclosure of assets and sources
of income would amount to “undue influence” — a
corrupt practice under   Section 123(2)   of the 1951 RP
Act. In this behalf, heavy reliance is placed by the
petitioner on a judgment of this Court
in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar [Krishnamoorthy v.
Sivakumar, (2015) 3 SCC 467: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 359:
AIR 2015 SC 1921]. It was a case arising under
the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. A notification
was issued by the State Election Commission stipulating
that every candidate at an election to any panchayat is
required to disclose information, inter alia, whether the
candidate was accused in any pending criminal case of
any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years
or more and in which charges have been framed or
cognizance has been taken by a court of law. In an
election petition, it was alleged that there were certain
criminal cases pending falling in the above mentioned
categories but the said information was not disclosed by
the returned candidate at the time of filing his
nomination. One of the questions before this Court was
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(19 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
whether such non-disclosure amounted to “undue
influence” — a corrupt practice under the Panchayats
Act. It may be mentioned that the Panchayats
Act simply adopted the definition of a corrupt practice
as contained in Section 123 of the 1951 RP Act.
80. On an elaborate consideration of various aspects of
the matter, this Court in Krishnamoorthy case
[Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, (2015) 3 SCC 467:
(2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 359: AIR 2015 SC 1921] held as
follows: (SCC p. 522, para 91)
“91. … While filing the nomination form, if
the requisite information, as has been highlighted
by us, relating to criminal antecedents, is not
given, indubitably, there is an attempt to
suppress, effort to misguide and keep the people
in dark. This attempt undeniably and undisputedly
is undue influence and, therefore, amounts to
corrupt practice. …”
81. For the very same logic as adopted by this Court in
Krishnamoorthy we are also of the opinion that the non-
disclosure of assets and sources of income of the
candidates and their associates would constitute a
corrupt practice falling under heading “undue influence”
as defined under Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act.
We, therefore, allow Prayer 2.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. In case of S. Rukmani Madegowda Vs. State Election
Commission [(2022) 18 SCC 1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
concluded that false declaration about assets would constitute a
corrupt practice and it was observed that if a false declaration with
regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents
is made, it shall be presumed that the false declaration impacts
the election.
25. In case of Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang [(2024) 15
SCC 112] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that whether the
non-disclosure of assets is of a substantial character or not, must
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(20 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
be determined by the Court based on the particular facts of each
case. For ready reference, relevant paragraph Nos. 37, 40 & 44 of
this judgment are being referred hereunder:-
“37. In Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. v.
Union of India and Ors. 1, a Constitution Bench affirmed
that, in terms of the earlier judgments in Association for
Democratic Reforms and Anr. (supra) and People's
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. v. Union of
India and Anr. , the right of voters to information, which
is traceable to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is
built upon the jurisprudence that information which
furthers democratic participation must be provided to
citizens and voters have a right to information which
would enable them to cast their votes rationally and
intelligently because voting is one of the foremost forms
of democratic participation. It was further observed that
voters have a right to the disclosure of information
which is 'essential' for choosing the candidate for whom
a vote should be cast.
40. Having considered the issue, we are of the firm
view that every defect in the nomination cannot
straightaway be termed to be of such character as to
render its acceptance improper and each case would
have to turn on its own individual facts, in so far as that
aspect is concerned. The case law on the subject also
manifests that this Court has always drawn a distinction
between non-disclosure of substantial issues as
opposed to insubstantial issues, which may not impact
one's candidature or the result of an election. The very
fact that   Section 36 (4)   of the Act of 1951 speaks of
the Returning Officer not rejecting a nomination unless
he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial
nature demonstrates that this distinction must always
be kept in mind and there is no absolute mandate that
every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and
impact, would automatically amount to a defect of
substantial nature, thereby materially affecting the
result of the election or amounting to ‘undue influence’
so as to qualify as a corrupt practice.”
It was further observed that,
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(21 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
“44. Though it has been strenuously contended before
us that the voter's ‘right to know’ is absolute and a
candidate contesting the election must be forthright
about all his particulars, we are not inclined to accept
the blanket proposition that a candidate is required to
lay his life out threadbare for examination by the
electorate. …………… Every case would have to turn on
its own peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast
or straitjacketed rule as to when the nondisclosure of a
particular movable asset by a candidate would amount
to a defect of a substantial character………….”
(emphasis added)
26. In case of Ajmera Shyam (supra), taking into account all the
above referred decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court reached to the
conclusion 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. It was concluded by the Court that “ 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. ”
27. Now in the light of above case law and dictum, this Court
proceeds to decide issues, which fall for consideration in this
petition.
I ssue No.1:
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(22 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
28. In the case at hand, coming to issue No. I, which pertains to
challenging the election of respondent No.1 by invoking the
grounds envisaged under Section 100 (1)(b), (d)(i) and (iv) of the
RP Act and seeking to cancel the nomination of respondent No.1
on the ground of its not being in conformity to Rule 4A of the
Rules of 1961, petitioner has pointed out the following defects in
the nomination papers, more particularly, in affidavit Form-26 of
respondent No.1:-
Note:- In order to maintain brevity of judgment and avoid
prolixity and unnecessary repetition, this Court deems it
appropriate, convenient and proper to discuss and deal with point-
wise defects/objections then and there on merits, along with an
analytical analysis of evidence adduced by parties so also to
record conclusion of this Court while referring to the
defects/objections as raised and pointed out by the petitioner in
this election petition, seeking cancellation of nomination of
respondent No.1 and to declare her election void.
Nomination form submitted by respondent No.1 on
04.11.2023 is Exhibit-3 and Form-26 affidavit is Exhibit-4.
28.1 In the affidavit Form-26, particulars of social media
accounts of respondent No.1, available on Facebook and Twitter,
were not disclosed whereas both of her social media accounts
were active and she had even posted videos on her social media
accounts, on the date of nomination. Exhibits-6 & 7 have been
produced by petitioner, to prove this defect.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(23 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
A nalysis and Conclusion:
28.1.1. In respect of non-disclosure of social media accounts of
respondent No.1 in her affidavit Form-26, this Court has noticed
that in the concerned column, mobile number and e-mail ID of
respondent No.1 are mentioned. Although, her social media
accounts, available on Facebook and Twitter are not specifically
mentioned but a judicial notice may be taken that these social
media accounts are not very secret rather, they can easily be
traced and are accessible by any person by using name and e-mail
ID of the person concerned. Respondent No.1 (DW-1) admits in
her cross-examination that her social media accounts are linked
and operative using her name, mobile number and email ID.
Petitioner PW-1 himself in his cross examination admits that he
got access to the Facebook account of respondent No.1 “Ritu
Banawat” and Twitter account “@DrRituBanawat” on his own and
that both were traced by him using her name, ant that both
accounts were linked with her mobile number as well. Further,
DW-1 expressed her ignorance about any misuse of social media
accounts by respondent No.1.
28.1.2. This Court has already noticed that neither any other
contesting candidate nor any voter was produced or appeared
before this Court as witness for and on behalf of petitioner, to
establish that he/she was mislead in any manner or that the
election got affected for the reason of non-disclosure of social
media accounts by respondent No.1.
28.1.3. Thus, it can be held that neither any candidate or voter
was mislead, nor did respondent No.1 gain any undue advantage,
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(24 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
nor did the non-disclosure of social media accounts of respondent
No.1 affected the election in any manner.
28.1.4. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, once respondent
No.1 had disclosed her mobile number and email ID in affidavit
Form-26, it is not desirable to conclude that non-disclosure of
social media accounts by respondent No.1 was her deliberate act,
amounting to adopting a corrupt practice by her, with an intent to
achieve some ulterior motive or to conceal some material
information about her, from voters, rather this Court finds that in
the present facts, it may not be even inferred that the social
media accounts by respondent No.1 were concealed, more
particularly, when same are traceable by using her name or by
applying her email ID etc, which were known to public at large.
28.1.5. Last but not least, this Court finds that mere non-
disclosure of social media accounts specifically in affidavit Form-26
may not be considered to be of a of substantial character, more so
when name, mobile number and email ID of respondent were duly
disclosed, hence, such defect does not warrant cancellation of
nomination nor does it affect the election of respondent No.1 in
any manner.
28.2. In column No.7(a) of Form-26 affidavit, which requires
details of movable assets, respondent No.1 did not disclose her
Bank Accounts in SBI Bank bearing No.5100007515 and in the
Canara Bank bearing No.5785101001986, so also she concealed
the deposits in her both bank accounts. Documents Exhibit-7/A
and 7/B and Exhibit-96/A have been produced by petitioner, in his
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(25 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
evidence, to show that SBI account of respondent No.1 was/is
active and live.
Analysis and Conclusion:
28.2.1. In respect of non-disclosure of SBI Account, respondent
No.1 in her evidence (DW-1) has made it clear that her SBI
account number was non-operative and carried no liability or
substantial balance, so it is not that she deliberately concealed it.
Otherwise also, same is already indicated in her Income Tax
Return for assessment year 2023-24 with disclosure of deposited
amount therein Rs.1458/- only. She states that ITRs of previous
five years were attached with the nomination and the amount
deposited in this bank account is nominal, hence, same may not
be considered concealment of a substantial character capable of
influencing the voters’ opinions or the election result.
28.2.2. In respect of bank account in Canara Bank, DW-1
states that this bank account was closed by her on 02.11.2023 i.e.
prior to submission of nomination on 04.11.2023, hence, same
was not an active bank account on that day. The document
showing closure of this bank account and its statement have been
produced by respondent No.1 in evidence as Exhibit-A/1 & A/2. It
has also been stated that in this bank account, deposit of interest
amount was only Rs. 83/-, which is a negligible amount.
28.2.3. Thus, this Court finds that in respect of non-disclosure
of both bank accounts, respondent No.1 in her reply and evidence
has explained, with justification that such non-disclosure is not
deliberate and more importantly not of any material or substantial
character nor has any nexus with the object and purpose, sought
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(26 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
to be achieved by disclosing the details of assets of candidate in
affidavit Form-26.
28.2.4. Additionally, it is noteworthy that respondent No.1 had
duly disclosed her total movable assets in affidavit Form-26 to the
worth of Rs.8,13,125/-. This total worth certainly includes the
trivial residual deposit of Rs.1458/- in SBI bank account and
Rs.83/-, in Canara bank account, and these amounts are already
indicated in ITR of respondent No.1. Even, if it is considered that
the deposit in SBI account was of Rs.18,702.70/- as per Exhibit-
165 (bank statement from 01.11.2023 to 30.11.2023) as stated
by petitioner, then also, it may not be concluded by this Court that
respondent No.1 deliberately concealed her SBI bank account
specifically to hide the deposit therein from voters and her act of
showing her deposits in the bank account as zero, in the relevant
column of affidavit Form-26 amounts to adopting a corrupt
practice.
28.2.5. Hence, on this count, respondent No.1 may not be held
guilty of adopting corrupt practice or concealing any movable
assets of substantial value, neither it can be concluded that, due
to non-disclosure of bank accounts and deposits therein, the right
to information of the other contesting candidates or voters was
infringed, nor has it been established that election got affected in
any manner.
28.3 (a) In column No.7 of Form-26 affidavit while mentioning
details of five bank accounts of husband of respondent No.1, name
of Bank of Account No.61057442435 has not been indicated;
Account Number of PNB Bank has wrongly been mentioned and
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(27 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
amount deposited in such five bank accounts have not been
disclosed separately and specifically.
(b) In addition, petitioner has also pointed out defect of making
false and incorrect valuation of three vehicles belonging to
husband of respondent No.1. According to petitioner, actual
valuation of vehicles as indicated in their purchase bills/documents
(Exhibit-122/A, 122/B and 122/C, 129, 130, 133 and 134) is much
higher than mentioned in column 7(vi) of Form-26 and further the
valuation of vehicles does not match the valuation mentioned in
nomination form filled by respondent No.1 in General Assembly
Election, 2023.
A nalysis and Conclusion:
28.3.1. In respect of this defect, having gone through the
evidence of PW-1 and DW-1 and as per the pleadings and
documents, it has transpired to this Court that in the relevant
column where the details of five bank accounts of husband of
respondent No.1 are mentioned, on the top, name of bank SBI,
Jaipur has been written and two bank account numbers at Sr. No.
(i) & (ii) belong to one and same bank.
28.3.2. As far as the incorrect mention of the bank account
number of PNB Bank is concerned, correct bank account No. is
9814000100009376, but it appears that while mentioning this
bank account by hand, digit “3” in the last four digits was
inadvertently omitted and instead of “9376”, only digit “976” came
to be mentioned. This error has been stated to be a bonafide and
human error committed inadvertently, while mentioning the long
digits of bank account number by hand.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(28 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
28.3.3. As far as non-disclosure of deposits in each bank
account separately and specifically is concerned, it has been
noticed that the total worth of movable assets of husband of
respondent No.1 has been mentioned, in the last column at
bottom, to the tune of Rs.49,09,862/- which includes all deposits
in his five bank accounts as well.
28.3.4. It is noteworthy here that petitioner has not been able
to establish that the amount deposited in five bank accounts of
husband of respondent No.1 exceeds or travels beyond the total
worth of movable assets as disclosed by respondent No.1 in the
Form-26.
28.3.5. This Court finds that petitioner has not produced any
iota of evidence to show that the actual amount, deposited in
these five bank accounts have been concealed, rather on the
th
contrary, as per details of deposited amount as on 4 November,
2023 i.e. at the time of submission of nomination form, in the
ICICI bank account, balance was of Rs.26,377.17/- (Exhibit-A/3)
and in PNB account, balance was of Rs.14,486.30/- (Exhibit-A/4),
it is, prima facie , established that the total value of movable
assets belonging to husband of respondent No.1 as disclosed in
Form-26 is correct and there is no concealment by respondent
No.1 in regard to five bank accounts of her husband.
28.3.6. Otherwise also, it is well established principle of law
that in an election petition involving the charge of corrupt practice,
the person charged with the corrupt practice enjoys the
presumption of innocence. The charge of adopting corrupt
practice, levelled by election petitioner must be proved “to the
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(29 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
hilt” i.e. by proof beyond reasonable doubt and not merely on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities.
28.3.7. As far as objection in respect of mentioning less
valuation of three vehicles belonging to husband of respondent
No.1 is concerned, petitioner PW-1 admits in his cross-
examination that vehicle Fortuner Car- RJ-05-UA-4888 was
purchased by husband of respondent No.1 in resale from one Shri
Anupam Singh in the year 2023. Value of vehicle in re-sale has not
been disclosed by petitioner. PW-1 does not deny the fact of
depreciation of value of vehicles with passage of time, when
vehicle becomes older after using the same.
28.3.8. In the opinion of this Court, by no stretch of
imagination, the value of vehicles may not be assessed, same as
indicated in the purchase bills at the time of purchasing the
vehicles, especially after the vehicles have been used for year.
28.3.9. In the relevant column, year of purchase of other two
vehicles Scorpio Car – RJ-14-UD-0200 and Tata Hydra – RJ-05-
GB-4579 is mentioned of year 2011, therefore, their current
valuation in the year 2023 would not remain static or same, rather
would certainly depreciate.
28.3.10. Further, this Court has noticed that the objection of
assessing and mentioning a lower valuation of three vehicles, as
raised by petitioner is not based on any inquiry of current and
correct market valuation of three vehicles and no material
evidence of the present market valuation of three vehicles have
been placed on record by petitioner. Hence, the objection, on its
face value appears to be hypothetical and may not be appreciated.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(30 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
28.4. Few defects have been pointed out by petitioner for not
disclosing the details of immovable assets belonging to respondent
No.1 and her husband, in the relevant column 7(b) of Form-26
affidavit:-
(a) Petitioner states that respondent No.1 disclosed her
agricultural lands at Uchchain and Roondh Roopwas, but Khasra
numbers of lands have not been disclosed and measurement of
lands has incorrectly been mentioned as 0.05 acre in column
7(b)(i). According to petitioner, respondent No.1 is recorded
khatedar of agriculture land at Village Jugla Patti, measuring 0.22
hectare and in Village Roondh Roopwas, measuring 0.16 hectare,
hence, measurement of her agriculture land come about 0.938
acre, but she falsely mentioned measurement of her agriculture
land as 0.05 acre only. In support of such objection, letter issued
by Tehsildar, Uchchain (Exhibit-96/C), Jamabandi of Samwat
2075-78 of agriculture land at Village Jugla Patti (Exhibit-97) and
Jamabandi and Girdawari of Samwat 2075-78 for the agriculture
land of respondent No.1 in Village Jugla Patti and Roondh Roopwas
of Khata No.210 & 331 respectively have been placed on record
and exhibited in cross-examination of respondent No.1 (DW-1) as
Exhibit-147, 148, 149 to 155.
Analysis and Conclusion:
28.4.1. In this respect, respondent No.1 has replied that since
there is no separate column in Form-26 to indicate Khasra
numbers of agriculture lands, same were not mentioned and as far
as measurement is concerned, same has correctly been mentioned
in the relevant column. It has been replied that Village Jugla Patti
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(31 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
is situated within Tehsil Uchchain, hence, there is no concealment
by respondent No.1 about details of her agriculture lands.
28.4.2. This Court finds that in cross-examination, PW-1 admits
that village Jugla Patti falls within Panchayat Samiti Uchchain.
Further, when petitioner put questions to respondent No.1 in her
cross-examination, about the alleged mismatch of measurement
of agriculture land, she replied that she has not concealed her
agriculture land and if some technical defect in mentioning the
measurement of land in Form-26 has appeared, same appears to
have occurred due to a miscalculation in measurement of
agriculture lands in Bigha, Hectare or Acre, which is insignificant
and has no nexus with object sought to be achieved.
28.4.3. As far as the issue of disclosing the assets by candidate
is concerned, in the opinion of this Court as well, such minor
defects may not be considered material or substantial defects if
same do not have any impact on the election, nor same can be
considered amounting to violation of the right to information of
the other candidates or voters, hence, cannot be taken to fall
within the ambit of adopting corrupt practice by respondent No.1.
(b) Petitioner pointed out that in the head of “Non-
Agricultural Assets”, a piece of land measuring 275 Sq. Meters
situated in Anupam Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur bearing No.C-598,
belonging to respondent No.1, which was disclosed by respondent
No.1 in her nomination- 2013 has not been disclosed in Form-26
submitted along with nomination- 2023.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(32 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
A nalysis and Conclusion:
28.4.4. In this respect, respondent No.1 has clarified that this
piece of land was agreed to be sold by her through an agreement
to sale dated 10.10.2023 i.e. prior to submission of nomination on
04.11.2023, hence, same was not mentioned. In evidence,
respondent No.1 (DW-1) states that buyer of this plot namely
Ravindra Kumar has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.416/25/25 for
specific performance based on the agreement dated 10.10.2023.
PW-1, in his cross-examination admits that in Form-26, there is no
specific column to disclose the properties which have been agreed
to be sold by the candidate.
28.4.5. Thus, in this way, this Court finds that non-mentioning
of this piece of land by respondent No.1 in her affidavit Form-26
has duly been explained with justifiable reasons, hence, it may not
be considered concealment of immovable assets on her part.
(c) Petitioner pointed out that in the column for details of
residential properties, ancestral house of respondent No.1
belonging to her husband’s family, situated at New Colony,
Roopwas has not been disclosed, but in this respect, respondent
No.1 has clarified that house of New Colony, Roopwas is not
ancestral house of her husband, rather same is self-acquired
property of her mother-in-law and is not even an HUF property.
Sale deed of this property has been produced in evidence as
Exhibit-A/6.
A nalysis and Conclusion:
28.4.6. It is noteworthy here that petitioner PW-1 in his cross-
examination admits that since in election identity card of
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(33 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
respondent No.1, address of New Colony, Roopwas was
mentioned, hence, merely on that basis, he was under the
impression that this house belongs to her husband but indeed he
has no document or other proof to show that this house belongs
to husband of respondent No.1. Thus, based on such evidence, it
is apparent that this objection by petitioner has been raised in air
baselessly and has no legs to stand.
(d) Petitioner also raised objection of concealment/non-
disclosure of properties of commercial/residential nature belonging
to husband of respondent No.1, stating inter alia , that husband of
respondent No.1 owns a machine “Tata Hydra” bearing
Registration No. RJ-05-GB-4579, hence, the property wheresoever
this machine is parked/installed must belong to the of husband of
respondent No.1, which has not been disclosed.
Analysis and Conclusion:
28.4.7. This objection, on its face value and apparently appears
to be hypothetical because PW-1 himself admits that this objection
has been raised by him merely based on registration of Tata Hydra
machine in the name of husband of respondent No.1 and indeed
he has no concrete information or proof about concealment of any
commercial or residential property belonging to husband of
respondent No.1.
28.4.8. In addition, it is noteworthy that no cross-examination
relating to this objection was made by the petitioner from
respondent No.1.
28.4.9. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that this objection
has been raised by petitioner arbitrarily, without any basis and
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(34 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
just based on a hypothetical presumption, as such same does not
survive at all.
28.5. Petitioner has raised a defect/objection of concealing of
source of income by respondent No.1 in column No.9 & 9(a) of
Form-26.
It has inter alia been stated that respondent No.1 showed
her income from agriculture land only whereas in her previous
nomination- 2013, she had disclosed her source of income from
transportation and in ITR of assessment year 2023-24, her source
of income has been indicated from wholesale and retail trade so
also by way of savings and shares. Thus, according to petitioner,
this is grave concealment on the part of respondent No.1, which
makes her affidavit Form-26 false, incorrect and invalid.
Analysis and Conclusion:
28.5.1. Respondent No.1 in her reply, evidence and written
arguments made it clear that indeed there is no inconsistency in
referring source of income of respondent No.1 in the affidavit
Form-26 submitted along with nomination 2023 and in her ITR for
the assessment year 2023-24. In her affidavit Form-26, source of
income has been disclosed as arising from agricultural land and in
ITR, source of income has been disclosed as arising from
wholesale and retail trade. Respondent No.1 submits that
agriculture produce is sold in both ways, wholesale as also in
retail, and such sale is a trade from agriculture produce.
28.5.2. That apart, income of Rs.6670/- showed in ITR 2023-
24, from shares and savings is a negligible amount and its non-
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(35 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
disclosure in affidavit Form-26 may not be considered as of
substantial character so as to impact the election.
28.5.3. In respect of showing source of income by way of
transportation in the nomination form of 2013, same was also
correct at the relevant point of time.
28.5.4. In view of reply and evidence of respondent No.1, in
the opinion of this Court, objection of petitioner in respect of
concealing the source of income by respondent No.1 does not
sustain, hence, is hereby rejected.
28.6. Petitioner has also pointed out defects in affidavit Form-
26 of respondent No.1 as pleaded by him in Para No.5(11), (12) &
(13) of election petition that some columns in Clause 7 & 8 have
left blank and unfilled, which itself goes to show that respondent
No.1 is guilty of concealing/non-disclosing the required
information, therefore, her nomination form deserves to be
cancelled.
The relevant columns are under the caption Þfodkl] lfuekZ.k
vkfn ds ekè;e ls Hkwfe ij dksà fufoèkkuÞ clause 7 (iv) and Þyksd foÙkh;
, which is
laLFkkvks vkSj ljdkj ds çfr nkf;Roksa@dksje dks 'kksè;ksa ds C;kSjsÞ
at clause 8(i) related to husband or wife and
Þljdkjh 'kksèk% ljdkjh
which is at clause 8(ii) in Form-26.
vkokl ls lacafèkr foHkkxksa ds 'kksèkÞ
Analysis and Conclusion:
28.6.1. Having gone through the captions of relevant columns
allged to be left blank and unfilled and having adverted to the
pleadings of parties and evidence, this Court finds that it is not
correct to state that the columns have not been filled.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(36 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
28.6.2. If relevant column 7(iv) is considered as a whole and in
seriatim, same pertains to residential apartments and in the final
column, the current market value of Apartment Nos.604 & 605,
Jagatpura, Jaipur, measuring 1900 Sq. Feet and 1400 Sq. Feet
respectively have been mentioned by respondent No.1 as 40 lacs
and 30 lacs. Thus, the unfilled column is deemed to record zero
value as is mentioned in the same caption of column belonging to
agriculture properties. As per Section 119(1) of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Court may presume existence of
certain facts which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being
had to the common course of natural events and human conduct.
Hence, in the opinion of Court, this may not be considered as
leaving the column blank or unfilled, with an intent to defraud
voters or to raise any benefit or gain.
28.6.3. Similar is the position in respect of column 8(i) under
caption
Þyksd foÙkh; laLFkkvks vkSj ljdkj ds çfr nkf;Roksa@dksje dks
in the head of husband or wife. Impliedly, this
'kksè;ksa ds C;kSjsÞ
column too may be deemed to record zero entry as when no
properties in the related upper columns, have been disclosed, it is
obvious that the question of obtaining any loan from the bank or
financial institution does not arise at all. Hence, same also needs
to be ignored being inconsequential and insignificant having no
impact on the election.
28.6.4. As far as column under caption
Þljdkjh 'kksèk% ljdkjh
is concerned, which finds place at
vkokl ls lacafèkr foHkkxksa ds 'kksèkÞ
clause 8(ii), a close perusal of the required information goes to
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(37 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
show that the required information is in the nature whether
candidate has been utilizing a Government house during last 10
years from the date of declaration of the election? The information
required to be disclosed is only in ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Since respondent
No.1 is in occupation of her Government house/accommodation
for less than 10 years or within 10 years period preceding the date
of declaration of election, hence, she filled in this column “No”
which may not be assumed to be incorrect, false or misleading in
any way.
28.6.5. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, these
objections of petitioner are inconsequential and insignificant,
which have been raised only for the sake of pointing out defects in
affidavit Form-26. Indeed such defect/objection, considering their
character, gravity and relevance to the issue of adopting corrupt
practice or to declare the affidavit Form-26 of respondent No.1
invalid, do not inspire any confidence and are worthy of rejection
only, hence, are hereby rejected.
29. This Court finds that, considering the object and purpose of
disclosing the assets of a candidate in Form-26, which have been
elaborately disclosed in Para Nos.119 and 120 of the judgment of
Supreme Court in PUCL’s case (supra), it is difficult to hold that
any of the defect pointed out by petitioner is commensurate with
that purpose and object sought to be achieved. This Court finds
that all defects are insignificant, being of non-substantial
character. It would be appropriate to refer Para No.119 & 120 of
PUCL’s judgment herein for ready reference, wherein the
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(38 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
justification for disclosure of information about assets of candidate
has been explained:-
“ IV. (2) Assets and liabilities
119. Disclosure of assets and liabilities is another thorny
issue. If the right to information is to be meaningful and
if it is to serve its avowed purpose, I am of the
considered view that the candidate entering the electoral
contest should be required to disclose the assets and
liabilities (barring articles of household use). A Member
of Parliament or State Legislature is an elected
representative occupying high public office and at the
same time, he is a “public servant” within the meaning
of the Prevention of Corruption Act as ruled by this Court
in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State [(1992) 3
SCC 637]. They are the repositories of public trust. They
have public duties to perform. It is borne out by
experience that by virtue of the office they hold there is
a real potential for misuse. The public awareness of
financial position of the candidate will go a long way in
forming an opinion whether the candidate, after election
to the office had amassed wealth either in his own name
or in the name of family members viz. spouse and
dependent children. At the time when the candidate
seeks re-election, the citizens/voters can have a
comparative idea of the assets before and after the
election so as to assess whether the high public office
had possibly been used for self- aggrandizement.
Incidentally, the disclosure will serve as a check against
misuse of power for making quick money, a malady
which nobody can deny, has been pervading the political
spectrum of our democratic nation. As regards liabilities,
the disclosure will enable the voter to know, inter alia,
whether the candidate has outstanding dues payable to
public financial institutions or the Government. Such
information has a relevant bearing on the antecedents
and the propensities of the candidate in his dealings with
public money. “Assets and liabilities” is one of the
important aspects to which extensive reference has been
made in Assn. For Democratic Reforms case. The Court
did consider it, after an elaborate discussion, as a vital
piece of information as far as the voter is concerned.
But, unfortunately, the observations made by this Court
in this regard have a been given a short shrift by
Parliament with little realization that they have a
significant bearing on the right to get information from
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(39 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
the contesting candidates and such information is
necessary to give effect to the freedom of expression.
120. As regards the purpose of disclosure of assets and
liabilities, I would like to make it clear that it is not
meant to evaluate whether the candidate is financially
sound or has sufficient money to spend in the election.
Poor or rich are alike entitled to contest the election.
Every citizen has equal accessibility in the public arena.
If the information is meant to mobilize public opinion in
favour of an affluent/financially sound candidate, the
tenet of socialistic democracy and the concept of
equality so firmly embedded in our Constitution will be
distorted. I cannot also share the view that this
information on assets would enable the public to verify
whether unaccounted money played a part in contesting
the election. So long as Explanation 1 to Section 77 of
the RP Act, 1951 stands and the contributions can
legitimately come from any source, it is not possible for
a citizen/voter to cause a verification to be made on
those lines. In my opinion, the real purposes of seeking
information in regard to assets and liabilities are those
which I adverted to in the preceding paragraph. It may
serve other purposes also, but, I have confined myself to
the relevancy of such disclosure vis-à-vis right to
information only.”
(emphasis added)
30. It is well known proposition of law and no more res integra
that ordinarily and in a routine manner, the success of a winning
candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with by
the Courts, unless the electoral process is found to be vitiated by
gross irregularities that undermine electoral integrity. The
intervention by Courts is certainly permissible, but when it is
clearly established, beyond reasonable doubt that there has been
a clear and blatant violation of the law that threatens fairness,
legality and constitutional principles or that any directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly been breached.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(40 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
31. It can safely be observed that the Court, certainly plays a
vital role in upholding the rule of law, but utmost care and caution
must be undertaken by the Court to ensure that election results
are not invalidated, merely based on subjective interpretation and
on minor or technical irregularities that do not substantially
impinge on the law and election results. An unwarranted
interference by the Court, with the electoral process on account of
insignificant and trivial nature of irregularities and consequent
overturning of election results may lead to a result of eroding the
public trust which forms a foremost factor in democratic
institutions.
32. Thus, whenever the issue of invalidating people’s mandate is
raised before the Court, the Court must be very careful and
circumspect. It is well settled that minor procedural errors or
purely technical objections of inconsequential nature should not be
allowed to override the mandate of electorate.
33. 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.
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.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(41 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
34. At the cost of repetition, it is hereby reiterated that no
adverse inference against a returning candidate for adopting
corrupt practice can be drawn and it is for the election petitioner,
who made allegations of following corrupt practice, to prove such
allegations “to the hilt” i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, not merely
on the basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities. Indeed,
the charge of corrupt practice falls of quasi judicial in nature, and
the required standard of proof is same as in a criminal trial and
not like civil cases.
35. In case of Santosh Yadav Vs. Narendra Singh [(2002) 1
SCC 160] , having considered dictum of law and ratio decidendi
expounded by the Supreme Court in its previous pronouncements,
on the issue of affecting the result of election based on improper
acceptance of nomination, the legal position was summed up as
under:-
“16. The law as regards the result of election having
been materially affected in case of improper acceptance
of nomination may be summed up as under:-
(1) A case of result of the election, in so far as it
concerns the returned candidate, having been
materially affected by the improper acceptance of any
nomination, within the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)
(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has
to be made out by raising specific pleadings setting
out all material facts and adducing cogent evidence so
as to enable a clear finding being arrived at on the
distribution of wasted votes, that is, the manner in
which the votes would have been distributed if the
candidate, whose nomination paper was improperly
accepted, was not in the fray.
2. Merely because the wasted votes are more than the
difference of votes secured by the returned candidate
and the candidate securing the next highest number
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(42 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
of votes, an inference as to the result of the election
having been materially affected cannot necessarily be
drawn. The issue is one of fact and the onus of
proving it lies upon the petitioner.
3. The burden of proving such material effect has to
be discharged by the election petitioner by adducing
positive, satisfactory and cogent evidence. If the
petitioner is unable to adduce such evidence the
burden is not discharged and the election must stand.
This rule may operate harshly upon the petitioner
seeking to set aside the election on the ground of
improper acceptance of a nomination paper, but the
Court is not concerned with the inconvenience
resulting from the operation of the law. Difficulty of
proof cannot obviate the need of strict proof or relax
the rigour of required proof.
4. The burden of proof placed on the election
petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as
nearing almost an impossibility. There is no room for
any guesswork, speculation, surmises or conjectures
i.e. acting on a mere possibility. It will not suffice
merely to say that all or majority of wasted votes
might have gone to the next highest candidate. The
law requires proof. How far that proof should go or
what it should contain is not provided by the
legislature.
5. The casting of votes at an election depends upon a
variety of factors and it is not possible for any one to
predicate how many or which proportion of the votes
will got o one or the other of the candidates. It is not
permissible to accept the ipse dixit of witnesses
coming from one side or the other to say that all or
some of the votes would have gone to one or the
order on some supposed or imaginary ground. ”
(emphasis supplied)
36. Following the legal position as summarized in Santosh
Yadav’s case (supra), in case of Harsh Kumar Vs. Bhagwan
Sahai & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 709] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
clearly observed that the success of a winning candidate at an
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(43 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
election should not be lightly interfered with. The Court noted that
in the scheme of Section 100 of the Act, special clause (d) of sub-
section (1) thereof clearly prescribes that inspite of availability of
grounds contemplated by sub Clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (d), the
election of a returned candidate shall not be avoided unless and
until it is proved that the result of the election, insofar as it
concerns a returned candidate was materially affected. It was also
observed therein that the burden of proof of corrupt practice is
very high and the standard of proof required is not the
preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond doubt. It was also
held and observed that the will of people cannot be lightly set
aside, though, of course, it is necessary to protect the purity of
the election.
37. Following the similar proposition of law, in case of Ajmera
Shyam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated the
following proposition and for ready reference, Para No. 9.10.6 is
being reproduced hereunder:-
“ 9.10.6. Under the circumstances, once the people
have spoken their mind by casting their votes through
the ballot box and reposed their confidence in the
elected candidate, whenever the issue of invalidating
the people's mandate is raised before the court, the
court must be very careful and circumspect.
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
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(44 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
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.
Thus, while the court plays a vital role in
upholding the Rule of law, utmost care must be taken
to ensure that election results are not invalidated
based on subjective interpretation and minor or
technical irregularities that do not substantially
impinge on the law, since unwarranted interference
with the electoral process and overturning election
results can erode public trust in democratic
institutions. ”
(emphasis supplied)
38. In the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Manipur High
Court in case of Shri Mayanglambam Rameshwar Singh
(supra) and the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Karnataka High
Court in case of Smt. S. Rukmini Madegowda (supra) wherein
the election of returned candidate was declared void, the said
judgment do not lend any strength to the election petitioner
seeking to declare the result of election of respondent No.1 as null
and void. Upon an analytical discussion of each and every ground
raised by the election petitioner, this Court does not find any force
therein to held that respondent No.1 is guilty of adopting corrupt
practice, or that her nomination was improperly accepted by the
Returning Officer or her nomination suffers from a serious defect
of substantive character which either violates the mandate of law
or materially affected her election. The legal proposition in both
these judgments is one and the same, as has been discussed and
highlighted by this Court in foregoing paragraphs.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(45 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
Other case laws, referred to by the counsel for both sides,
are merely multiplication of the principles of law that have already
been discussed elaborately hereinabove, therefore, this Court
deems it unwarranted to discuss and refer to each judgment
separately, as same will not provide any aid/assistance
additionally to either parties. The case laws discussed
hereinabove, encapsulate each and every point as raised by
parties in their verbal and written submissions.
39. The conclusion of Court is that petitioner miserably failed to
establish issue No.1 in his favour, hence, resultantly, there is no
reason to declare the election of respondent No.1 null and void
and issue No.1 is decided accordingly, against petitioner.
Issue No.2 and 3:
40. Issue no.2 pertains to seeking cancellation of nomination of
other candidates, respondent Nos.2 to 10, who also contested
elections for Member of Legislative Assembly from Constituency
Bayana (076).
Issue No.3 is in the nature of a consequential declaration of
election petitioners as unopposed elected Member of Legislative
Assembly of Constituency Bayana (076) for Election- 2023, in
case, the election of respondent No.1- Returned candidate is
declared void and the nomination of other contesting candidates
respondent Nos. 2 to 10, are cancelled by the Court.
41. As far as issues Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, undisputed
position on record is that Form-21E (Exhibit-1) is an undisputed
document and exposes data of votes polled in Constituency
Bayana in General Assembly Election, 2023. This document
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(46 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
contains total number of electors, total number of valid votes
polled, number of voters who opted for NOTA, number of rejected
voters and number of voters polled in favour of each contesting
candidate in the election of Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly
Elections Constituency Bayana (076).
41.1. As per record, respondent No.1, in whose favour, the
highest number of votes (105748) were polled, was declared
elected and Returned Candidate for Constituency Bayana (076).
41.2. Respondent No.2 Bachchusingh received 14398 votes,
respondent No.3 Amarsingh – 65107 votes, respondent No.4
Mukesh- 642 votes, respondent No.5 Madanmohan – 1620 votes,
respondent No.6 Munniram- 431 votes, respondent No.7 Neetu-
527 votes, respondent No.8 Vijay Singh- 528 votes, respondent
No.9 Ajay Singh- 634 votes, respondent No.10 Sudesh Kumari-
1167 votes and election petitioner-Purushottam got 689 votes.
41.3. Thus, it stands clear by calculation on tips that the total
number of votes polled in favour of returned candidate respondent
No.1, exceeds to the total votes cast in favour of election
petitioner and other candidates respondent Nos.2 to 10 (total
689+85743=86432 votes). Hence, considering the total number
of votes polled in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 10, individually
or collectively, even if nomination of any of candidate out of
respondent Nos.2 to 10 is cancelled as prayed by petitioner, same
does not yield to any change in the final result of election of
respondent No.1, nor does it place the petitioner in any
advantageous position.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(47 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
41.4. For such reason, this Court does not deem it just and
proper, rather, finds it unwarranted to enter into the grounds on
merits, as pleaded and raised by petitioner, to cancel the
nomination of other unsuccessful nine contesting candidates
(respondent Nos.2 to 10 herein), because even if issue is decided
in favour of petitioner, same would remain inconsequential and
insignificant, as far as the final result of election of respondent
No.1 is concerned, more so when this Court has not declared the
election of respondent No.1 void while deciding issue No.1.
41.5. Similarly, based on the outcome of issue No.1, the
adjudication of issue No.3 as well becomes redundant and
unwarranted.
42. Thus, in view of above reasoning, issue Nos.2 and 3 have
been rendered redundant and stand decided accordingly.
43. Before parting with, this Court finds it desirable and
necessary to take a serious note, which is apparent on the record
that how and in what manner respondent No.1, knowingly and
deliberately, adopted dilatory tactics for avoiding service of
summons of this election petition, so as to escape from putting
presence before this Court. In order to ensure service of summon
and mark presence by respondent No.1 in this election petition,
Court has to follow an unprecedented method of service, when it
transpired to the Court that respondent No.1 is evading service of
summon, sent by the Court through Process Server of Court so
also by registered post.
Respondent No.1 is an elected Member of Legislative
Assembly in General State Assembly Election, 2023 and holds a
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(48 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
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.
44. From the record of this election petition, it appears that
respondent No.1 was declared elected on 03.12.2023 and this
petition was instituted before this High Court on 08.12.2023.
Respondent No.1 marked her presence in this election petition for
the first time through her Advocate on 10.10.2024.
44.1. The election petition was admitted and summons were
issued to all the respondents including respondent No.1 vide order
dated 22.12.2023. Summons were permitted to be served ‘dasti’
by way of Process Server of Court so also were sent through
registered post. Petitioner submitted extra sets, PF and notices,
mentioning the current residential address of respondent No.1, yet
summons could not be served.
44.2. As per report of Process Server dated 12.01.2024,
17.01.2024 and 19.01.2024, though her given address on
summons was correct, however, every time, it was reported that
she is not available at home; her landlord and an another person,
working in her office were asked to receive summon, but both
refused to receive summon, hence, same was returned unserved.
44.3. Registered summon also came to be returned with the
same remark that respondent No.1 was not found at her home on
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(49 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
either of dates i.e. 08.01.2024, 09.01.2024, 10.01.2024,
11.01.2024, 12.01.2024 & 15.01.2024.
44.4. Since according to election petitioner, respondent No.1
was knowingly avoiding service of summon, hence, he served
summon upon respondent No.1 on her Whatsapp mobile number
and email ID, proof of which with his affidavit has been placed on
record by petitioner.
44.5. This Court, in order-sheet dated 21.09.2024 noted the
conduct of respondent No.1, that how she is evading service of
Court summons and again fresh notices were ordered to be
issued. Simultaneously, a direction was also given to hold an
enquiry through concerned District Judge.
44.6. In the Enquiry Report of District Judge, it revealed that
Process Server visited several times at the residence and official
address of respondent No.1 on 12.01.2024, 17.01.2024 &
19.01.2024 so also talked to her on telephone and gave
information about the present election petition. In the Enquiry
Report, it was also noticed that information to the landlord of
respondent No.1 Mr. Rakesh Tiwari and one Office Assistant of
respondent No.1 was also given by the Process Server, yet service
could not be effected and since no witness was present at site,
summons could not be pasted.
44.7. In such circumstances, this Court while issuing fresh
notice to respondent No.1, directed to ensure service of notice
through the Secretary, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly since
respondent No.1 was an elected Member of Rajasthan State
Legislative Assembly.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(50 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
44.8. In this way, summons of election petition against
respondent No.1 could serve upon her through Secretary,
Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly on 08.10.2024 and then she
put in appearance through Advocate.
45. In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent
No.1 is main contesting party to this election petition as it is her
election, which is under challenge herein and at stake, hence,
without effecting proper service of summon upon her, the
proceedings on election petition was not possible to proceed.
Therefore, it is apparent that in order to protract the proceedings
of this election petition, respondent No.1 took resort to passing a
longer time by evading service of summon upon her and not
responded, despite having information, through various modes, of
presentation of this election petition against her.
In the opinion of this Court, respondent No.1 should not
have adopted such modus operandi to delay and deter the
proceedings of election petition, and she has been found, prima
facie , guilty of circumventing the legal process of service of
summons, that too, to achieve an ulterior motive, therefore, this
Court finds it appropriate, just and proper, more particularly, in
order to deter such methods of avoiding process of Court by a
person, holding a constitutional position, to saddle the respondent
No.1 with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, which will be payable by her to
election petitioner. Simultaneously, this Court strongly deprecates
the conduct and practice followed by respondent No.1 to avoid her
presence in this election petition for a long period of about 10
months.
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)

(51 of 51)
[2026:RJ-JP:23284] [EP-1/2023]
Final Conclusion:
46. The upshot of discussion and enunciation made hereinabove,
factually and legally, is that, this Court arrives at a conclusion that
petitioner could not succeed in establishing any ground(s) to seek
cancellation of the nomination of respondent No.1 and to declare
her election as a Member of Legislative Assembly for Constituency
of Bayana (076) in District Bharatpur in the General Assembly
Election, 2023 in the State of Rajasthan, void and finally this
election petition fails, hence, same is hereby dismissed.
47. However, respondent No.1 is saddled with cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) payable by her to the election
petitioner within a period of thirty days, on account of following a
wrong precedent to delay and deter the proceedings of this
election petition by evading service of summons of election
petition for a longer period as discussed by this Court in Para
No.43-45 hereinabove.
48. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL), J
Nitin/
(Uploaded on 29/06/2026 at 04:41:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/06/2026 at 05:03:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)