Daijiworld Media Network - Bhopal
Bhopal, Sep 26: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday strongly criticised the state government for allegedly shielding Cabinet Minister Govind Singh Rajput over accusations of concealing assets worth crores in his 2023 assembly election affidavit.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, hearing a petition filed by Rajkumar Singh of Sagar district, said the state appeared to be “deliberately withholding information from the Election Commission” and was effectively siding with the minister.
The petitioner alleged that Rajput failed to disclose 64 plots of land and other properties owned by him and his family. These assets, the court was told, were missing from Rajput’s affidavit. The petitioner submitted registry and land records showing that between 2019 and 2024, Rajput, his wife, and sons had purchased about 40 hectares of land in Sagar district worth hundreds of crores of rupees, while his affidavit declared assets worth only Rs 12 crore.
The bench observed that although the Election Commission had deemed the allegations serious enough to investigate, the state government stalled the probe by telling the Commission that it was “an EC matter.” The court said this had left the inquiry pending for months.
The High Court has now directed the Election Commission to file additional documents and ordered the Madhya Pradesh government and the District Election Officer, Sagar, to submit a status report before the next hearing on October 9.
The controversy has deepened with the Income Tax Department also probing properties linked to the minister. Earlier, it was reported that Rajput’s family came into possession of 50 acres of land gifted by his in-laws in Bhapel village of Sagar district. Critics allege the family benefited from Section 58(3) of the MP Land Revenue Act, 1959, which allowed land to be reclassified from non-irrigable to irrigable on paper, enabling fresh registration at concessional rates — a move that allegedly caused losses to the state exchequer.
The case has raised sharp questions over transparency and accountability in the state’s handling of election affidavits and land transactions involving a sitting minister.