An unsuccessful Assembly candidate challenged the winner’s election from Sursand, Sitamarhi, in the Patna High Court.
He alleged hidden properties, improper publication of criminal cases, and illegal counting of postal ballots.
The Court held that the returned candidate had not suppressed assets or criminal cases and that counting lapses were not proved to affect the result.
The election petition was dismissed and the winner keeps his seat.
Case Background
The case arises from the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections for 26, Sursand Assembly Constituency in Sitamarhi district, held on 07.11.2020.
Sixteen candidates contested. Respondent No. 1, the returned candidate, stood on a Janta Dal (United) ticket and secured 67,193 votes.
The election petitioner contested on the Rashtriya Janata Dal symbol “Lantern” and came second with 58,317 votes.
The polling schedule was as follows: last date for nominations 20.10.2020; presentation of nomination by the returned candidate 19.10.2020; scrutiny on 21.10.2020; last date of withdrawal 23.10.2020; polling on 07.11.2020; result declared on 10.11.2020; election to be completed by 12.11.2020.
Invoking Sections 80, 80A, 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the election petitioner approached the Patna High Court seeking to set aside the election of Respondent No. 1.
He alleged three broad grounds: suppression of immovable assets of the returned candidate and his spouse in Form 26; failure to properly publish criminal antecedents; and illegalities and irregularities in counting, including rejection of postal ballots.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar, carefully went through pleadings, documents and oral evidence from both sides.
The Court framed six issues, but grouped them effectively into three core questions: whether there was suppression of assets; whether there was failure to publish criminal antecedents; and whether counting of votes (including postal ballots) was improper so as to materially affect the result. The Court also examined the legal requirement of “material effect” under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951.
Alleged suppression of immovable assets
The petitioner listed in detail several plots said to be owned by Respondent No. 1 and his wife, alleging that these had not been disclosed in Column 7B of Form 26 filed with the nomination papers. These included plots in Runni Saidpur, Dumra, Lagma, Mushahari and other circles in Sitamarhi and Muzaffarpur, with deed numbers and dates between 2007 and 2019.
To prove this, the petitioner produced certified copies of sale deeds as Exhibits 2 to 17, showing purchase of these lands in the names of the returned candidate and his spouse.
The returned candidate, in his written statement and evidence, did not dispute that he and his wife had purchased many of these properties in the past. His defence was that most of the lands mentioned by the petitioner had been sold long before the filing of the nomination in October 2020, or were already reflected in Form 26, or were under lease or agreement for sale in such a way that title was not with him.
He produced his own set of exhibits (A to R), being certified copies of sale deeds, lease deeds and an agreement for sale, to show that the questioned properties had been either transferred or already accounted for in the total land area disclosed in Form 26.
The Court analysed these rival documents issue by issue.
For Khata No. 1029, Plot No. 9404 (24 decimals in total), alleged to be suppressed, the Court noted that the respondent and his wife had bought this land through several sale deeds, but had sold it in full to different purchasers before filing nomination. This was supported by Exhibits B, C, F, G, H, L, M, N, O, P, Q and R. As the properties were no longer held on the relevant date, non-mention in Form 26 was held not to be suppression.
Regarding Khata No. 410, Plot No. 3580 (5 decimals), the petitioner relied on a deed dated 18.07.2017 (Exhibit 5), but the respondent showed that the actual purchase was on 18.07.2007 and that he had sold the land to one Smt. Sudha Devi on 13.11.2009 (Exhibit K). Since the land had been sold years before the election, the Court accepted that it did not need to be disclosed.
For Plot No. 399 of Khata No. 322 and Plot No. 8872 of Khata No. 1563 standing in the spouse’s name, the Court recorded that the details were already present in Form 26. Thus, the allegation of suppression was “precisely false”.
On Plot No. 1267 of Khata No. 458 (8 decimals), the Court found that while this specific plot number was not typed in Form 26, the total area of land disclosed in paragraph 7(b)(i) under the spouse’s column was 314 decimals. When the area of the five plots whose numbers were specifically listed (1470, 1467, 9393, 9507, 9685) is added, it comes to 306 decimals. Therefore, the remaining 8 decimals necessarily related to Plot No. 1267. Further, the date “16.07.2007” noted in Form 26 corresponded to this plot’s purchase deed. On this basis, the Court accepted that there was no intention to hide this land and that the omission of the plot number was an inadvertent clerical error.
Regarding Plots Nos. 1563 and 1564 of Khata Nos. 600 and 599 (19.5 decimals), the respondent produced Exhibit A, an agreement for sale along with RTI reply, to show that his wife had already received the consideration money from a purchaser, though a sale deed could not be executed due to restrictions imposed by the District Magistrate. The Court accepted that, in these circumstances, there was no deliberate concealment.
On Khata No. 315, Plot No. 1004 and Khata No. 143, Plot No. 1619, the respondent showed that these lands had been sold by his wife to third parties in 2015 and 2019 respectively (Exhibits I and J). Hence, they were not part of his or his spouse’s assets on the date of nomination.
As for alleged non-disclosure of Khata No. 2101, Plot No. 1471 (100 decimals) and the combination of Khata Nos. 2101 and 1585, Plot Nos. 1471 and 1466 (158 decimals), the Court accepted the respondent’s evidence that these were leasehold properties (Exhibits D and E), not absolute purchases. There was no transfer of title in favour of the respondent or his wife, and information in respect of related Plot No. 1470 was already reflected in Form 26.
On this detailed factual examination, the Court concluded that the respondent had provided the total measurement of his and his spouse’s immovable property in Form 26, and that either the questioned lands had been disposed of prior to the election, or were included within the total area disclosed, or were only under lease or agreement. No willful suppression of assets was established.
The Court also stressed the legal requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, read with Section 33A, that even if there is some non-compliance, the election can be invalidated only when the result is shown to have been materially affected. Here, the petitioner had not pleaded or proved how any alleged non-disclosure of assets changed the outcome of the election.
Publication of criminal antecedents
The petitioner claimed that the respondent had two pending criminal cases (Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 171/15 and Sachivalaya P.S. Case No. 64/20) but failed to publish these details electronically and in print on three different dates between withdrawal of candidature and two days before polling, as required by Supreme Court directions and Election Commission of India guidelines.
The respondent denied this and asserted that he had fully complied. He produced original newspaper pages of “Prabhat Khabar” dated 25.10.2020, 30.10.2020 and 04.11.2020 (Exhibits S, T, U), which showed publication of his criminal antecedents. He also produced the Tax Invoice of “Kashish News” channel dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure R-4) to show that his criminal record was broadcast on electronic media.
The Court accepted these documents as proof that the respondent had indeed publicised his criminal cases in both print and electronic media as commanded by the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India. Therefore, the allegation of non-publication failed.
Alleged manipulation in counting and postal ballots
The petitioner alleged that during counting on 10.11.2020, statutory provisions and Election Commission instructions were violated. He said postal ballots were counted last and at a separate place, about 206 postal votes were rejected without valid reasons, and that counting agents’ objections were ignored.
In reply, the respondent stated that all postal ballots were in fact counted before the EVM votes. He also argued that, even assuming some irregularity, the margin of victory was much larger than the total postal ballots, so there was no question of the result being materially affected.
The Court noted that total postal ballots received were 891, of which 206 were rejected. But the returned candidate’s lead over the petitioner was 8,876 votes, which is more than ten times the total postal ballots. The Court further observed that the petitioner had not produced cogent evidence to show that illegal counting or wrongful rejection of postal ballots had altered the result.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, (2012) 3 SCC 314, and to Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang (Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023), to reaffirm that mere breach of procedure or instructions does not automatically void an election. The petitioner must plead and prove that such breach has “materially affected” the result in so far as it concerns the returned candidate.
Here, the election petitioner had not pleaded specific facts showing material effect, nor led evidence of such effect. Therefore, even if some procedural lapses were assumed, they did not meet the high threshold of Section 100(1)(d)(iv).
Final conclusion
After examining all issues, the Patna High Court held that:
- there was no substantial suppression of assets by the returned candidate or his spouse,
- criminal antecedents had been duly published in newspapers and on television, and
- alleged irregularities in counting and postal ballots were not proved to have materially affected the election result.
The Court therefore found that the election of Respondent No. 1 from 26, Sursand Assembly Constituency did not suffer from any disqualification under Sections 80, 80A, 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The election petition was held to be devoid of merit and was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for candidates, political parties and voters in Bihar and beyond.
First, it shows that complaints about non-disclosure of assets in election affidavits must be backed by clear, current ownership records. Properties sold years earlier, or inadvertently mis-described when the total area is correctly shown, will not automatically invalidate an election.
Second, it underlines that candidates with criminal cases must strictly follow publication rules. But if they can show newspaper clippings and records of TV broadcasts, courts will treat these as strong proof of compliance.
Third, it makes clear that challenges based on counting of votes, especially postal ballots, cannot succeed without proof that the mistakes actually changed the result. Mere suspicion or procedural irregularity is not enough.
Overall, the Patna High Court reinforces that setting aside an election is a serious matter. The person challenging the result must show not only some breach of the law but also that this breach materially affected who won.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Did the returned candidate suppress details of his and his spouse’s immovable assets in Form 26 so as to render his election void?
Answer: No. The Court found that the properties alleged as suppressed were either already sold before nomination, already included in the total area disclosed, or leasehold or under agreement for sale. No deliberate concealment or material effect on the result was proved. - Issue: Did the returned candidate fail to publish his criminal antecedents in the manner mandated by the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India?
Answer: No. Newspaper pages of “Prabhat Khabar” and the Tax Invoice of “Kashish News” showed that the details of the pending criminal cases were duly published on three different dates and broadcast electronically. - Issue: Were votes, including postal ballots, improperly counted or rejected so as to materially affect the election result?
Answer: No. Although the petitioner alleged irregularities, he led no cogent evidence. The respondent’s victory margin was far greater than the number of postal ballots, and the Court held that no material effect on the result was established under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another, (2002) 5 SCC 294 (referred to in submissions on voter’s right to information).
- Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatraya Sawant & Others, AIR 2014 SC 2069 (relied on in argument regarding disclosure of assets).
- Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, (2012) 3 SCC 314 (quoted by the Court on “materially affected” requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iv)).
- Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang and Another, Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 (Supreme Court decision on non-disclosure and material effect, cited and followed).
Case Details
Case Number: Election Petition No. 20 of 2020
Case Title: Syed Abu Dojana v. Dilip Ray & Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar
Date of Judgment: 05.07.2024
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 771
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma, Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan
- For the Respondents: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Mr. Awnish Kumar, Mr. Bandana Singh, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh
Nature of the Case: Election petition under Sections 80, 80A, 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of a returned candidate to the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
Statutes and Provisions Considered: Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Sections 33A, 80, 80A, 81, 83, 100(1)(d)(iv); Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (in submissions); relevant Election Commission of India instructions.
Link to Judgment (Official Web Copy): Patna High Court Judgment – Election Petition No. 20 of 2020
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
