5 min readVadodaraApr 3, 2026 01:37 AM IST
Holding that “to nullify the choice” of voters over “minor technicality and insignificant non-disclosure” in election affidavits would have “serious repercussions on the democratic process”, the Gujarat High Court on Thursday rejected an election petition filed by former Congress MLA Lalit Kagathara, challenging the candidature of BJP MLA Durlabhjibhai Detharia elected from the Tankara Assembly constituency in Morbi district in 2022.
Kagathara, who secured 73,018 votes in the 2022 elections, had lost to Detharia (83,274 votes). He then moved a petition on January 21, 2023, challenging the validity of Detharia’s candidature, stating that he had objected to Detharia’s Form 26 affidavit during the scrutiny of the nominations.
Kagathara contended that Detharia’s affidavit had incomplete details such as social media, income years, criminal proceedings, assets/liabilities, education), and suppression of material information, but the returning officer (RO) had overruled and accepted the affidavit. Detharia’s application seeking dismissal of Kagathara’s petition was filed in July 2024.
Kagathara had filed an election petition in the High Court under the relevant Sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), claiming that Detharia’s candidature was a result of corrupt practice by undue influence, improper acceptance of nomination, and non-compliance with Sections of the RP Act and ECI guidelines. Detharia then filed an application seeking dismissal of the petition for lacking the cause of action and non-compliance RP Act.
Among Kagathara’s contentions was that the details of Detharia’s social media accounts were not disclosed, and his income of five preceding years was mentioned as per the ITR, but the affidavit did not specify incomes by the financial year. Kagathara’s contentions, as recorded in the judgment of the HC, also included the details of criminal proceedings and past convictions or pendency of criminal cases in Detharia’s affidavit having been “not ticked and left blank”, among other declarations of financial assets. The petition contended that Detharia “deliberately suppressed mandatory facts about properties and made a false declaration regarding assets…”
A single judge bench of Justice IJ Vora of the Gujarat HC, in its judgment, said on Thursday, “In order to prove allegation… of the Corrupt Practice, it is necessary to plead that what are the corrupt practices being committed by the return candidate and how the undue influence has directly or indirectly interfered with the pre-exercise of an electoral right. Upon meaningful reading of the plaint, it appears that, except legal provision and defects mentioned in the affidavit Form 26, nothing being alleged that the suppression of the information in the affidavit amounted to ‘corrupt practices’ as defined in the RP Act…”
Referring to the precedents set by the SC in the contentions raised by the petition about suppression of facts related to finances, criminal cases and assets, the HC judgment states, “So far as ground declaring election to be void on the allegation of corrupt practice is concerned, upon meaningful reading of the petition, I am of the prima-facie view that, the returned candidate had substantially disclosed the information with regard to pendency of criminal cases, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications. So far as other discrepancies pointed out are not of a substantial character amounting to corrupt practice of undue influence… The statutory provisions (of the RP Act) provide that, the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character…”
Story continues below this ad
Citing a 2025 verdict of the Supreme Court, the HC further stated, “…the Court must keep in mind that declaring an election void, solely for non-disclosure of assets, if it lacks substantially, could undermine the validity of the popular mandate. To nullify the choice of the people on a minor technicality and insignificant non-disclosure of assets by the elected candidate would have serious repercussions on the democratic process. Thus, while the court plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, utmost care must have been taken to ensure that the election results are not invalidated based on subjective interpretations and minor or technical irregularities that do not substantially impinge on the law…”
Stating that public trust in the electoral process must be protected, the judgment states, “…Since unwarranted interference with the electoral process and over-tuning election results can erode public trust in democratic institutions… Nullifying the election results and overturning the people’s verdict through cold, clinical analysis and tools should be avoided, unless the electoral process has been vitiated by gross irregularities that undermine electoral integrity. Courtroom’s intervention should only be done when there are clear and blatant violations of the law that threaten fairness, legality and constitutional principles…”
