Rs 83 Bank Balance Void Mlas Election Rajasthan High Court

A closed bank account with just Rs 83 in interest could not become the basis for setting aside an elected MLA's victory, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled while dismissing a petition challenging Bayana MLA Ritu Banawat's 2023 State Assembly election. At the same time, the court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the legislator for deliberately evading service of summons for nearly 10 months, saying such conduct deserved strong disapproval. Justice Sudesh Bansal was hearing an election petition filed by defeated candidate Purushottam Lal under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Lal had challenged Banawat's election from the Bayana Assembly constituency in Bharatpur district, alleging that she had concealed material information in the mandatory Form-26 affidavit filed along with her nomination papers. “It has also been stated that in this bank account, deposit of interest amount was only Rs 83, which is a negligible amount…Such non-disclosure is not deliberate and more importantly not of any material or substantial character…This total worth certainly includes the trivial residual deposit of Rs 1458 in SBI bank account and Rs 83, in Canara bank account,” the court said on June 29. The dispute arose after the 2023 Rajasthan Assembly Elections in which Banawat won the Bayana seat with 1,05,749 votes. Purushottam Lal, who secured 689 votes, approached the high court on December 8, 2023, seeking to have her election declared void and himself declared elected on the ground that the nominations of all other candidates ought to have been rejected. Justice Sudesh Bansal said that while voters have a constitutional right to know relevant information about candidates, not every omission is sufficient to invalidate an election. (Image enhanced using AI) Rs 83 bank account became focal point The Canara Bank account ultimately became the centrepiece of the case, which had been closed on November 2, 2023, two days before Banawat filed her nomination papers on November 4. The only amount lying in the account was Rs 83 credited as interest. Justice Bansal accepted the MLA's explanation, holding that the omission was neither deliberate nor material. The court further noted that Banawat had disclosed total movable assets worth Rs 8,13,125 and observed that this figure “certainly includes the trivial residual deposit of Rs 1458 in SBI bank account and Rs 83, in Canara bank account”. The high court therefore held that she could not be accused of concealing any movable asset of substantial value or of adopting a corrupt practice merely because the closed account was not separately disclosed. Multiple allegations over election affidavit The election petition alleged that Banawat's Form-26 affidavit contained several omissions and inaccuracies amounting to concealment of material information and "corrupt practice" under the Representation of the People Act. Besides alleging that she had failed to disclose two bank accounts, the petitioner claimed she omitted details of her social media accounts, understated the extent of her agricultural land, failed to correctly disclose particulars of her husband's bank accounts, left several columns in the affidavit blank, and furnished incorrect or incomplete information relating to immovable properties, liabilities and government accommodation. Not guilty of concealing any movable assets Justice Bansal relied on a series of Supreme Court decisions dealing with disclosure of assets by election candidates, including Association for Democratic Reforms, People's Union for Civil Liberties, Resurgence India, Krishnamoorthy, Lok Prahari and Ajmera Shyam v Kova Laxmi. The high court reiterated that while voters have a constitutional right to know relevant information about candidates, not every omission in Form-26 is sufficient to invalidate an election. The MLA may not be held guilty of adopting corrupt practice or concealing any movable assets of substantial value. Neither can it be concluded that, due to non-disclosure of bank accounts and deposits, the right to information of the other contesting candidates or voters was infringed, nor has it been established that the election got affected in any manner. These objections of the petitioner are insignificant. such defect/objection does not inspire any confidence and is worthy of rejection only. The petitioner could not succeed in establishing any ground(s) to seek cancellation of the nomination of the MLA and to declare her election void, and finally this election petition fails; hence, same is dismissed. Rs 1 lakh cost for delaying proceedings The court found that despite being aware of the election petition through various modes, the MLA avoided service of summons and delayed entering appearance for nearly ten months, prolonging the proceedings. Holding that such conduct by an elected representative could not be countenanced, Justice Bansal imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Banawat, directing her to pay the amount to the election petitioner within 30 days.