Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Saturday, October 10, 2026 Jaipur Edition
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

Bald Allegations of Undisclosed Criminal Cases Cannot Sustain Election Petition: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Hanumangarh Poll Challenge

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court rejected, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an election petition against the returned candidate for the Hanumangarh Assembly constituency. The petition alleged that 17 criminal cases were not disclosed but gave no FIR numbers, police stations or courts; the Court held that such bald pleadings disclosed no cause of action (paras 31-32, 37, 42, 47-48). A typing error citing non-existent 1967 Rules could be corrected (paras 28-30).

Bald Allegations of Undisclosed Criminal Cases Cannot Sustain Election Petition: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Hanumangarh Poll Challenge
Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
Amit v. Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors.
2025:RJ-JD:15473
S.B. Election Petition No. 3/2024
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
29 April 2025
Bench
Justice Dinesh Mehta
Relevant Acts & Sections
Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 80-A, 81, 83, 100, 123(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17, Order VII Rule 11; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
Final Outcome

The amendment application (I.A. No. 03/2024) was allowed and the amended petition taken on record (para 30). The Order VII Rule 11 CPC application was allowed, following Karim Uddin Barbuhiya, and the election petition was rejected (paras 47-48).

Key holdings

  1. Citing non-existent ‘Conduct of Election Rules, 1967’ instead of the 1961 Rules is a curable typing error (paras 24, 27-28).
  2. Pleadings on undisclosed criminal cases need particulars such as FIR numbers and police stations; annexures alone do not suffice (paras 32, 34-35).
  3. Prima facie, a candidate need not disclose cases in which the police filed a negative final report (para 33).
  4. An unsigned back of the stamp paper does not invalidate a Form 26 affidavit signed and attested on every page (para 39).
  5. An election petition without material facts discloses no cause of action and can be rejected at the threshold (paras 41, 45-47).

Brief Facts

Amit filed an election petition under sections 80-A, 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the election of respondent no.1, Ganesh Raj Bansal, declared elected for the Hanumangarh Assembly constituency on 03.12.2023 (para 1). He alleged that the nomination was improperly accepted because the back of the stamp paper carrying the notary's attestation was unsigned, and that the returned candidate withheld information about 17 criminal cases, amounting to corrupt practice (para 23). The returned candidate sought rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, citing the petition's reliance on non-existent ‘Conduct of Election Rules, 1967’ and its lack of pleadings (paras 2-9). The petitioner applied to amend the year to 1961 (paras 11-12).

Court's Findings

The Court held that citing the non-existent 1967 Rules instead of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was a typographical error, not fatal: the petitioner plainly meant the 1961 Rules, and the Court must apply the law as it exists regardless of the pleadings (paras 24, 27-28). The amendment application was allowed (paras 29-30). On non-disclosure, the petition made only a bald assertion about FIRs, and the pleading on 17 undisclosed cases gave no FIR number, police station or court (paras 31-32). Prima facie, the Court said, a candidate need not disclose cases in which the police filed a negative final report (para 33). Even otherwise, the petitioner had to plead particulars such as FIR numbers, complainants, offences and police stations; annexing final reports in 3-4 cases was not enough (paras 34-35). The averments neither met section 83 nor made out a case under section 100(1)(d)(i) or (ii), and disclosed no corrupt practice (paras 37-38). The petition's own documents showed that the returned candidate had disclosed his pending cases (paras 42-43). The unsigned back of the stamp paper did not invalidate Form 26, which was signed and attested on every page (para 39).

Legal Principle

A person questioning an election must plead precisely and specify legal grounds. Allegations of undisclosed criminal cases need material particulars such as FIR numbers, police stations and courts; annexing documents does not suffice, such averments do not meet section 83 of the 1951 Act, and the petition may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (paras 34-37, 46-47).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Karim Uddin Barbuhiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6282/2023, order dated 08.04.2024; AIR 2024 SC 2193
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 10, 46, 47

    Election pleadings must be precise, specific and unambiguous; a petition that does not set out grounds under section 100 or conform to sections 81 and 83, or omits a material fact, is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Relied upon by the returned candidate and followed by the Court.

  2. Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20, 41

    An election petition can be dismissed summarily if it does not disclose the cause of action. Cited by the returned candidate.

  3. Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986) SCC Suppl 315
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 45

    The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC ensures that meaningless litigation bound to prove abortive does not occupy the court’s time.

View all precedents (13)
  1. Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanswamy & Sons & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 84
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20, 26, 40

    Principles governing amendment of pleadings; relied upon by the returned candidate to oppose the amendment, which the Court allowed.

  2. Rajkumar Gurawara through LRs v. S.K. Sarwagi & Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 364
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20, 40

    Conditions limiting amendment of pleadings; cited by the returned candidate.

  3. Jitendra Kumar v. Vishvaraj Singh & Ors. S.B. Election Petition No. 02/2024, order dated 10.10.2024 (Rajasthan High Court)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20, 40

    Where no breach of the Act is pleaded, an election petition ought to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; cited by the returned candidate.

  4. Eldeco Housing And Industries Ltd. v. Ashok Vidyarthi & Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 1612
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 40

    Merits cannot be examined while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; cited by the petitioner.

  5. Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 467
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 40

    Failure to disclose a candidate’s criminal antecedents constitutes corrupt practice; cited by the petitioner.

  6. Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India & Anr. (2014) 14 SCC 189
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 40

    Voters have a right to know candidates’ antecedents; a nomination leaving criminal-case particulars blank can be rejected; cited by the petitioner.

  7. Umesh Challiyil v. K.P. Rajendran AIR 2008 SC 1577
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 40

    An election petition cannot be dismissed summarily unless the defect goes to the root; cited by the petitioner.

  8. Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 788
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 40

    Technical and curable defects do not warrant rejection of an election petition; cited by the petitioner.

  9. Nimmaka Simhachallam & Ors. v. Pamula Pushpa Sreevani E.A. No. 1/2022 in E.P. No. 20/2019 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 40

    A mere typing error is no ground to reject an election petition; cited by the petitioner.

  10. Nirmal Singh v. Varinder Kaur Loomba Election Petition No. 3/2012 (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 40

    An Order VI Rule 17 CPC application can be filed even after 45 days from the election; cited by the petitioner.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: April 29, 2025 Justice Dinesh Mehta
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt