Rajasthan HC Dismisses Petition to Void Bayana MLA's Election, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost on Returned Candidate for Evading Summons
Justice Sudesh Bansal dismissed a challenge to Ritu Banawat's 2023 Bayana assembly win, finding no substantial defect in her Form-26 affidavit, but penalised her for evading court summons for ten months.
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by Purushottam Lal, a losing candidate from the Bayana constituency (No. 076), District Bharatpur, who sought to have the election of returned candidate Ritu Banawat declared void. Justice Sudesh Bansal, sitting singly at the Jaipur Bench, found that none of the alleged defects in Banawat's nomination affidavit (Form-26) were of a substantial or material character capable of amounting to a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition was filed on 8 December 2023, just five days after the election result was declared. While the election challenge failed entirely, the court imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on Banawat for deliberately evading service of summons for nearly ten months, conduct the court described as warranting strong deprecation from a person holding a constitutional position.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Purushottam Lal contested the General Rajasthan State Assembly Elections, 2023 from Bayana constituency and secured 689 votes. Ritu Banawat won with 1,05,749 votes and was declared the returned candidate by the Returning Officer on 3 December 2023. Nine other candidates collectively received 85,743 votes.
Lal filed the election petition directly before the High Court under Section 80 and Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is triable by the High Court under Section 80-A. His core grievance was that Banawat had not disclosed complete and correct information in her Form-26 affidavit filed along with her nomination on 4 November 2023. He argued this amounted to concealment of material information, constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RP Act, and that her election should be declared void under Section 100(1)(b) and (d) of the Act.
Lal also challenged the acceptance of nomination forms of the other nine contesting candidates (respondents 2 to 10) and sought, as a final prayer, that all their nominations be cancelled — leaving him as the sole surviving candidate to be declared elected unopposed.
The Returning Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate was arrayed as respondent No. 11. Respondents 5, 6, 8 and 10 were set ex parte. Only Banawat and respondent No. 3 filed replies. The court framed four issues on 19 December 2024, accepted by counsel for both sides as encompassing all points in the petition.
The Legal Framework: Asset Disclosure and Corrupt Practice
Justice Bansal set out the statutory and judicial framework at length before addressing the specific objections. Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 requires a candidate to deliver, along with the nomination paper under Section 33(1) of the RP Act, an affidavit sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary in Form-26. Section 33A mandates disclosure of criminal antecedents. Section 33B, which had sought to limit disclosure obligations, was declared void by the Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 399] as being in conflict with the court's earlier directions in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294].
The court noted that the obligation to disclose assets and educational qualifications does not arise from any specific statutory provision in the RP Act itself, but from Form-26 as required under Rule 4A — a position affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi and Ors. [(2026) 3 SCC 373]. That judgment drew a distinction between disclosure of criminal antecedents, which has an explicit statutory basis in Section 33A, and disclosure of assets, which entered election law through judicial evolution.
The court extracted the directions issued in Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India [(2014) 14 SCC 189], including the direction that filing an affidavit with blank particulars renders it nugatory, and that a candidate must at minimum write “NIL” or “Not Applicable” rather than leave columns blank. However, the court also drew on Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang [(2024) 15 SCC 112] and Ajmera Shyam for the proposition that not every non-disclosure, regardless of gravity, automatically amounts to a defect of substantial character. The test is whether the defect is material and substantial, and whether the candidate deliberately concealed information with intent to defraud voters.
On corrupt practice specifically, the court referred to Lok Prahari v. Union of India [(2018) 4 SCC 699], where the Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income of candidates and their associates constitutes a corrupt practice amounting to “undue influence” under Section 123(2) of the RP Act — but subject always to the caveat of substantiality. The standard of proof for corrupt practice, the court reiterated, is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not preponderance of probabilities.
How the Bench Analysed Each Objection
Lal raised thirteen sub-grounds of defect in Banawat's Form-26. Justice Bansal addressed each in turn.
Social media accounts: Banawat did not disclose her Facebook and Twitter accounts in Form-26, though both were active. The court found that her mobile number and email ID were disclosed, and that Lal himself admitted he traced both accounts using her name alone. No voter or candidate was produced as a witness to show they were misled. The court held this was not a deliberate concealment of material information and did not affect the election.
Undisclosed bank accounts: Lal alleged Banawat concealed two bank accounts — one with SBI (No. 5100007515) and one with Canara Bank (No. 5785101001986). Banawat explained the SBI account was non-operative with a balance of only ₹1,458, already reflected in her Income Tax Return for assessment year 2023-24. The Canara Bank account had been closed on 2 November 2023, two days before nomination, with an interest credit of only ₹83. The court accepted these explanations, finding no deliberate concealment of any substantial value.
Husband's bank accounts and vehicle valuation: Lal pointed to errors in the details of five bank accounts of Banawat's husband — including a missing bank name and an incorrect PNB account number (one digit omitted while writing a long number by hand). The court found the total movable asset value disclosed for the husband (₹49,09,862) was not shown to be understated, and that the bank balances in ICICI and PNB accounts as on 4 November 2023 (₹26,377.17 and ₹14,486.30 respectively, per exhibits produced by Banawat) were consistent with the disclosed total. On vehicle valuation, the court noted that Lal's own cross-examination admitted one vehicle was purchased in resale in 2023, and two others dated from 2011 — depreciation was an obvious factor. No current market valuation evidence was produced by Lal.
Agricultural land measurement: Lal alleged Banawat disclosed her agricultural land as 0.05 acres when revenue records showed holdings of 0.22 hectares at Village Jugla Patti and 0.16 hectares at Village Roondh Roopwas. Banawat replied that Village Jugla Patti falls within Tehsil Uchchain (which she had disclosed), and that any measurement discrepancy arose from conversion between bigha, hectare and acre. Lal himself admitted in cross-examination that Village Jugla Patti falls within Panchayat Samiti Uchchain. The court found this a minor discrepancy without material impact.
Plot at Anupam Vihar, Jaipur: A 275 sq. metre plot disclosed in Banawat's 2013 nomination was absent from her 2023 Form-26. Banawat produced an agreement to sell dated 10 October 2023 — before the 4 November 2023 nomination — and stated the buyer had filed Civil Suit No. 416/25/25 for specific performance. Lal admitted in cross-examination that Form-26 has no specific column for properties agreed to be sold. The court accepted the explanation.
House at New Colony, Roopwas: Lal alleged this was the ancestral house of Banawat's husband. Banawat produced a sale deed (Exhibit A/6) showing it was the self-acquired property of her mother-in-law, not an HUF property. Lal admitted he had no document to prove otherwise and had assumed ownership from the address on Banawat's voter identity card. The court found the objection baseless.
Commercial property linked to Tata Hydra machine: Lal argued that because Banawat's husband owned a Tata Hydra machine (RJ-05-GB-4579), the premises where it was parked must belong to him and should have been disclosed. The court found this entirely hypothetical — Lal admitted he had no concrete information or proof, and no cross-examination on this point was conducted with Banawat.
Source of income: Lal argued Banawat showed only agricultural income in Form-26 while her ITR for 2023-24 showed income from wholesale and retail trade and from shares and savings. Banawat explained that agricultural produce sold wholesale or retail is trade from agriculture, and that the income from shares and savings was ₹6,670 — a negligible amount. The court accepted this and rejected the objection.
Blank columns in Form-26: Lal pointed to three columns left unfilled: clause 7(iv) relating to development/construction on land, clause 8(i) relating to liabilities of husband or wife to public financial institutions, and clause 8(ii) relating to government accommodation. The court found that clause 7(iv) was not truly blank — Banawat had disclosed market values of two apartments in Jagatpura, Jaipur, and the unfilled sub-column was to be read as zero. Clause 8(i) was impliedly zero because no related properties had been disclosed. Clause 8(ii) required only a yes/no answer on whether the candidate had used government accommodation in the preceding ten years; Banawat answered “No,” which the court found was not shown to be incorrect.
Across all thirteen objections, the court concluded that petitioner failed to produce any voter or other candidate as a witness to establish that anyone was misled, that any undue advantage was gained, or that the election result was affected. The court applied the principle from Ajmera Shyam that the court must determine whether there was substantial compliance with legal requirements, or whether the deficiency was merely technical or procedural.
Issues 2 and 3: Nomination of Other Candidates
Issue No. 2 concerned whether the nominations of respondents 2 to 10 were improperly accepted. Issue No. 3 was the consequential prayer that Lal be declared elected unopposed if both issues 1 and 2 were decided in his favour.
The court disposed of both issues without entering the merits. The vote tally from Form-21E (Exhibit-1) showed that Banawat received 1,05,748 votes against a combined total of 86,432 votes for all other candidates including Lal. Even if every nomination of respondents 2 to 10 were cancelled, the arithmetic would not change the result in Banawat's favour, and Lal's prayer to be declared elected unopposed could not arise while Banawat's election stood. Since issue No. 1 was decided against Lal, issues 2 and 3 became redundant.
Conduct of Respondent No. 1: Summons Evasion
Before concluding, Justice Bansal recorded a detailed finding on Banawat's conduct in evading service of summons. The election petition was admitted and summons issued on 22 December 2023. Process Server reports dated 12 January, 17 January and 19 January 2024 recorded that Banawat was not found at her address on each occasion, and that her landlord and an office assistant both refused to accept summons. Registered post was returned unserved on six dates between 8 and 15 January 2024.
Lal then served summons on Banawat's WhatsApp number and email ID, filing an affidavit as proof. The court, by order dated 21 September 2024, directed a fresh notice and an enquiry through the concerned District Judge. The District Judge's enquiry report confirmed that the Process Server had visited Banawat's residence and official address multiple times, spoken to her by telephone, and informed her landlord and office assistant — yet service could not be effected.
The court ultimately directed that notice be served through the Secretary, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. Service was effected on 8 October 2024, and Banawat appeared through an advocate on 10 October 2024 — nearly ten months after summons were first issued.
Justice Bansal found that Banawat, as an elected MLA holding a constitutional position, had deliberately adopted dilatory tactics to protract the proceedings. The court strongly deprecated this conduct and imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 payable to the election petitioner within thirty days.
Outcome
The election petition was dismissed. The election of Ritu Banawat as Member of Legislative Assembly for Constituency Bayana (076), District Bharatpur, declared on 3 December 2023, was upheld. All three issues were decided against Purushottam Lal. Banawat was directed to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 to Lal within thirty days. All pending applications were disposed of.