"Court assesses whether vague allegations, lack of pleadings, and jurisdictional objections undermine the validity of the election petition."
Recently, in a closely contested Lok Sabha election marred by allegations of deceased voters, duplicate voting, and procedural irregularities, the Bombay High Court was called upon to determine whether such claims, absent detailed pleadings and statutory compliance, could sustain an election challenge. At the heart of the case was a jurisdictional twist and a crucial question: Can procedural gaps and unsubstantiated allegations justify judicial scrutiny of an electoral mandate? Read on to see how the Court weighed legal formalities against electoral integrity in this high-stakes challenge.
Brief facts:
The General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha were announced, voting for the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency took place, and results were declared on June 4, 2024. Smt. Shobha Dinesh Bacchav was declared elected with 5,83,866 votes, defeating Dr. Subhash Ramrao Bhamre, who secured 5,80,035 votes, a margin of 3,831 votes. The constituency comprises six assembly segments, including Malegaon Central, where a notably high number of votes were polled in favor of the winning candidate. The matter was brought before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. During proceedings, a jurisdictional issue also arose, as Dhule district is not included in the Bombay High Court’s rules governing the presentation of Election Petitions. Hence, the case is before the Court pursuant to a challenge to the declared election result through an Election Petition.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The petitioner alleged that 4,378 deceased persons were listed in the Malegaon Central voter roll and that votes were cast in their names in favor of the returned candidate, based on the municipal death register. It was also claimed that 3,329 individuals voted multiple times at different booths, and that 1,998 tendered votes and six EVMs were excluded from counting, materially affecting the result. The petitioner relied on Election Commission records and stated that further evidence would be produced during trial. As no corrupt practice was alleged, an affidavit in Form 25 was not required. The petition’s maintainability before the Aurangabad Bench was affirmed based on jurisdictional transfer under the States Reorganisation Act and assignment by the Chief Justice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent sought dismissal of the petition for lacking the mandatory Form 25 affidavit under Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Allegations of deceased voting, multiple voting, and uncounted ballots were termed vague and unsubstantiated. The petition was said to lack material facts and a complete cause of action under Sections 100 and 101. Claims about Burkha-clad women voting were deemed speculative and violative of voter secrecy. The verification was also challenged for citing personal knowledge without disclosing sources. Jurisdictional objection was raised, as Dhule was not covered under Rule 4 of the High Court’s Election Petition Rules, requiring filing at the Principal Seat in Bombay.
Observations of the Court:
Justice Arun R. Pedneker observed, “In the election Petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected Under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Election Petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election Petition Under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act.”
The Court, addressed two primary issues: the jurisdictional propriety of the petition Hawkins, J., in a comprehensive judgment, elucidated key legal principles and statutory interpretations concerning the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the High Court’s procedural rules.
The Court examined whether the Election Petition was correctly presented before the Aurangabad Bench, given that Rule 4 of the High Court Presentation of Election Petition Rules did not explicitly include Dhule. The Court noted that the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, via notifications in 1984 and 1996, established and expanded the Aurangabad Bench’s jurisdiction to include Dhule. It held that “after the inclusion of district Dhule in the Presidential Order of 1996 to the Aurangabad Bench, the Election Petition is rightly presented before the Aurangabad Bench of High Court of Bombay.”
In resolving the jurisdictional objection, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Laxmi Sadho Vs. Jagdish, which held that “Rules framed by the High Court relating to trial of election petitions are only procedural in nature and do not constitute ‘substantive law’.” The Court noted that the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, through the Presidential Order of 1996, included Dhule within the Aurangabad Bench’s jurisdiction, overriding the procedural omission of Dhule in Rule 4 of the High Court’s Election Petition Rules.
It observed, “There is no prima-facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons,” and emphasized the absence of affidavits from polling agents confirming such irregularities. The Court noted that polling agents, under Rules 13, 35, and 36 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, have mechanisms to challenge voter identity, yet no evidence of such challenges was presented. It held, “This court would not undertake an inquiry to ascertain, whether voting has been cast in the name of dead persons or that there is multiple voting in the name of same persons without supporting pleadings and material in the Election Petition.”
The Court found no specific ground in the petition demonstrating that the non-counting of votes from six EVMs materially affected the election. The Election Commission’s application (Exhibit-13) clarified that 2,028 votes from four EVMs were excluded due to non-deletion of mock data, but this did not materially impact the outcome, given the 3,831-vote margin.
Further, the Court accepted the Petitioner’s assertion that no corrupt practice was alleged, rendering the Form 25 affidavit unnecessary. It noted, “The Election Petitioner has also not contended that this case is covered within Section 100(1)(b) and / or 100(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 123 [Corrupt Practice] of the Representation of the People Act,” and cited A. Manju Vs. Prajwal Revanna Alias Prajwal R and others to affirm that non-filing of Form 25 is a curable defect. However, the absence of corrupt practice allegations meant this ground could not sustain the petition.
The decision of the Court:
Under the light of the foregoing discussion, the Application in Election Petition No. 35 of 2024 (Exhibit-16) was allowed, and consequently, Election Petition No. 2 of 2024 was dismissed. All pending applications were also dismissed.
Case Title: Smt. Shobha Dinesh Bacchav Vs. Dr. Shri. Subhash Ramrao Bhamre and Ors.
Case No.: Application in Election Petition No.35 of 2024
Coram: Justice Arun R. Pedneker
Read Judgment @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
