Election Result Cannot Be Declared Void for Non-Disclosure of Assets Lacking Substantial Character

The Petitioner, a contesting candidate who secured 689 votes in the 2023 Rajasthan State Assembly Elections for the Bayana Constituency (No. 076), challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 (the returned candidate with 105,749 votes).

The challenge was primarily based on alleged non-disclosure and concealment of assets, liabilities, social media accounts, and sources of income in the Form-26 affidavit, asserting that such omissions constituted "corrupt practices" under Section 100(1)(b) and (d) of the Representation of People Act (RP Act), 1951.

The Petitioner further sought to disqualify Respondents No. 2 to 10 to be declared the only surviving candidate.

1. Whether the alleged non-disclosures in Form-26 attract grounds under Section 100(1)(b) or 100(1)(d) of the RP Act, 1951, to declare the election of Respondent No. 1 void.

2. Whether the nomination forms of Respondents No. 2 to 10 were improperly accepted and are liable to be rejected.

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to be declared as an unopposed elected member if the other nominations are cancelled.

The Court applied Section 33A and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, regarding the mandatory filing of Form-26 affidavits.

It relied on the principle from Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India [(2014) 14 SCC 189], holding that filing an affidavit with blank particulars renders it nugatory if the candidate fails to fill them after a reminder.

The Court further applied Section 36(4) of the RP Act, which mandates that a nomination shall not be rejected for defects not of a "substantial character".

It integrated the doctrine from Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang [(2024) 15 SCC 112] and Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi [(2026) 3 SCC 373], establishing that the "right to know" is not absolute and only non-disclosure of "substantial issues" (as opposed to technical or trivial ones) warrants voidance of an election.

charges of "corrupt practice" under Section 123 must be proved "to the hilt" beyond reasonable doubt.

Social media accounts: Non-disclosure was deemed non-substantial as name/email were provided, making accounts easily traceable.

Bank Accounts: The SBI and Canara bank accounts contained trivial amounts (Rs. 1,458 and Rs. 83), and their omission did not constitute a material defect.

Vehicle Valuation: The Petitioner’s claim of undervalued vehicles failed because he did not factor in depreciation or provide market evidence.

Real Estate: The Court accepted the explanation that a plot was sold via agreement-to-sale prior to nomination and a residential house belonged to the mother-in-law, not the candidate.

Blank Columns: The Court found that the unfilled columns were either technical omissions or implied a "Nil" value, lacking the substantiality required to influence the electorate.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner failed to prove that these minor discrepancies materially affected the election result or infringed upon the voters' "right to know" in a meaningful way.

Issues No. 2 and 3 were rendered redundant as the election of the returned candidate remained valid.

The Court dismissed the election petition.

Consequently, the Court saddled Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 payable to the Petitioner.