Once Negative Police Report Is Filed, Prima Facie No Need To Reveal Info In Nomination Form: Rajasthan HC Rejects Election Plea Against MLA

Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order said:

"This Court has it own reservation about the legality and sustainability of the issue which the petitioner has canvassed and in prima-facie opinion of this Court, once the police has filed negative Final Report, the candidate furnishing nomination paper is not required to give particulars of those cases. The petitioner has neither brought to the Court's notice any statutory provision nor any precedent which enjoins upon a candidate to furnish information even in those cases wherein the police has given him a clean chit". 

The court further opined that even if it was presumed that the candidate was required to disclose such cases, the petitioner had not given any particulars of the cases like FIR numbers, police station, court etc. Mere enclosure of final reports of such cases was not sufficient, particularly when it came to an election petition, it added. 

“Election petition is not a luxury litigation. It is settled position of law that the election of a returned candidate cannot be called in question as a matter of course. A person questioning the election of a returned candidate has to be precise in his pleadings.The manner in which the petitioner has pleaded and put forth his grounds cannot be countenanced. The High Court cannot be asked to conduct fishing and roving enquiry on the basis of vague allegations and called upon to sift through the pile of pages,” it said. 

The Court was hearing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 moved by Bansal elected from Hanumangarh Assembly Constituency, seeking dismissal of an election petition moved by one Amit challenging Bansal's election. 

The petitioner had alleged that the nomination form of the candidate did not bear his signatures on the backside of the stamp paper, and that he failed to disclose some of the criminal cases pending against him.

This election petition was challenged by Bansal, on two grounds. Firstly, it was argued that the election petition referred to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1967, which did not exit. The Election Rules promulgated by the Central Government were the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

Secondly, it was argued, that as per Section 81 and 83 of the Representations of People Act, 1951 (“the Act”), pleadings in an election petition had to be precise, specific and unambiguous, and shall contain grounds set out in Section 100 of the Act.

It was submitted that the petitioner had only mentioned that the candidate did not disclose criminal cases, without giving any particulars of the cases. In absence of such specific pleadings, the election petition had to be rejected.

After hearing the contentions, the first argument was rejected by the Court as trivial and a venial mistake, ruling that wrong mentioning of the year of the Rules was not fatal to maintainability of the election petition.

“When there are no Conduct of Election Rules, 1967 in existence, it would be a travesty of justice to non-suit the petitioner and reject his amendment application. The Court cannot adopt such a conservative rather hyper-technical approach even in dealing with election matters which jurisdiction is otherwise known for going by the letter than spirit.”

The second argument was accepted by the Court which highlighted that the cases referred to by the petitioner in the pleadings, were the ones in which the police had filed negative report. It was opined that once the police had field a negative final report, the candidate was not required to give particulars of those cases.

“The petitioner has neither brought to the Court's notice any statutory provision nor any precedent which enjoins upon a candidate to furnish information even in those cases wherein the police has given him a clean chit.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that even though it was presumed that such disclosure was required on part Bansal, it was necessary for the petitioner to give details of all the cases such as FIR number, name of the complainants, offences alleged, and the police station. Mere enclosure of negative final reports was not sufficient.

In this light, the Court held that the pleading in the petition did not meet the requirements of Section 83 of the Act, neither did it establish any of the ground mentioned in Section 100 of the Act.

It referred to Supreme Court's decision in Karim Uddin Barbuhiya vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. which held that if the allegations contained in an election petition did not set out grounds contemplated in Section 100, and did not confirm to the requirements of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the petition was liable to be rejected.

Lastly, the Court held that, “Absence of sign of the respondent No.1 does not invalidate the form, because no part of the form or details required in the form has been inscribed at the backside of the stamp at page No.39. Such page cannot be treated to be a part of Form No.3, simply because seal of attestation and other particulars have been written by the Notary.”

Accordingly, Bansal's application filed against the election petition was accepted, and the election petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Amit v Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 161