Substantial Defect Required to Invalidate Election: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Election Petition Over Minor Affidavit Irregularities, Upholds People's Mandate

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Purushottam Lal vs Ritu Banawat & Ors

Citation: Election Petition No. — (Rajasthan State Assembly Elections, 2023)

High Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudesh Bansal

Date of Judgment: 29th June, 2026

Area of Law: Election Law, Constitutional Law, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Corrupt Practices, Affidavit Disclosure Requirements

2. Judgment in Brief

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the election of respondent no.1 as Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Bayana Constituency in the 2023 Rajasthan State Assembly Elections. The petitioner, who had secured only 689 votes against the respondent's 1,05,749 votes, alleged that the respondent had failed to disclose complete and correct information regarding her assets and liabilities in the Form-26 affidavit, thereby adopting corrupt practices. The Court, after a detailed examination of each alleged defect, held that none of the defects were of a "substantial character" that would materially affect the election result. The Court applied the principles laid down in Resurgence India, Krishnamoorthy, and Ajmera Shyam, and held that minor procedural errors or technical objections of inconsequential nature should not override the mandate of the electorate. The Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the respondent for evading service of summons for nearly ten months.

3. Relevant Facts

The Election

• The Rajasthan State Assembly Elections, 2023 were held for Constituency Bayana (No. 076), District Bharatpur.

• Eleven candidates contested the election.

• Respondent No.1 (Ritu Banawat) secured 1,05,749 votes and was declared the returned candidate (MLA) on 03.12.2023.

• The petitioner (Purushottam Lal) secured 689 votes.

• Other nine candidates (respondents no. 2 to 10) received a total of 85,743 votes.

The Election Petition

• The petitioner filed the election petition on 08.12.2023 under Sections 80/81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

• The petitioner sought:
  Declaration that respondent no.1's election is void under Section 100(1)(b) & (d) of the RP Act.
  Cancellation of nomination forms of respondents no. 1 to 10.
  Declaration that the petitioner be declared the returned candidate.

Alleged Defects in Form-26 Affidavit of Respondent No.1

The petitioner alleged the following defects in the Form-26 affidavit:

1. Social Media Accounts: Failure to disclose Facebook and Twitter accounts.

2. Bank Accounts: Non-disclosure of SBI Bank Account (No. 5100007515) and Canara Bank Account (No. 5785101001986), and concealment of deposits.

3. Husband's Bank Accounts: Incorrect mention of PNB account number; non-disclosure of name of one bank; non-disclosure of deposits in five bank accounts separately.

4. Valuation of Vehicles: Incorrect and lower valuation of three vehicles (Fortuner, Scorpio, Tata Hydra) belonging to husband.

5. Agricultural Land: Incorrect measurement; non-disclosure of Khasra numbers.

6. Non-Agricultural Assets: Non-disclosure of a piece of land at Anupam Vihar, Jaipur (agreed to be sold prior to nomination).

7. Residential Property: Non-disclosure of ancestral house at New Colony, Roopwas (claimed to be self-acquired property of mother-in-law).

8. Commercial/Residential Properties: Non-disclosure of properties where husband's Tata Hydra machine is parked.

9. Source of Income: Concealment of source of income (agriculture vs. wholesale/retail trade).

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.