Bombay HC Rejects Election Petition Challenging Karjat Assembly Result; Emphasizes Need for Clear and Specific Pleadings

The Bombay High Court dismissed the main Election Petition and refused the petitioner’s plea to amend his petition. The Court allowed the application of the returned candidate under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the Election Petition at the threshold.

The petitioner, an independent candidate for the 189-Karjat Legislative Assembly Constituency, challenged the election of the winning candidate (respondent). He sought to have the respondent’s election set aside and to be declared duly elected in his place, relying on Sections 83, 86(5), 100, 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

After the respondent was declared the winner of the election, the petitioner lodged complaints and initiated proceedings based on alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct and improper acceptance of the respondent’s nomination, among others. He alleged that the respondent’s election was vitiated by corrupt practices, namely, distribution of sarees to voters, fielding dummy candidates with similar names, sending misleading bulk SMS, non-disclosure of criminal cases, and improper acceptance of votes.

The respondent’s counsel filed for summary rejection of the petition, arguing lack of material particulars and cause of action. They argued that the petition failed to set out a concise statement of material facts or detailed particulars of alleged corrupt practices, as required under Section 83 of the RPA. He highlighted vague allegations, lack of specifics regarding persons involved, time, and place, and sought dismissal under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

The court noted that allegations were either inferential or lacked actionable particulars, including connection of Thorve to the SMS campaign, or proof the alleged dummy candidates affected the outcome.

The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that election petitions require strict compliance with pleading requirements, i.e., every corrupt practice or ground must be supported by material facts and detailed particulars per Section 83 and Supreme Court precedents in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar[1] and Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain[2].

The Court observed that mere inferential reasoning without any detail means no triable issue is presented. The Court further noted that the alleged distribution of sarees, SMS, and dummy candidates lacked actionable specifics linking the respondent to improper acts. The non-disclosure of a criminal case was found to be a typographical error not amounting to substantial defect or material impact on the outcome.

The Election Petition was summarily rejected, and amendment for amplification of material particulars was denied, since the original petition lacked the necessary factual foundation. The judgment emphasized that the courts will not permit lengthy trials based on cleverly worded but insubstantial petitions; statutory requirements and the right to contest elections without harassment must be maintained. The respondent’s election was thereby affirmed, and all applications by the petitioner were dismissed, protecting the result declared in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly poll.

Cases relied on:

1. Jyoti Basu and Ors. V. Debi Ghosal and Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 691
2. Dharminbhai Kashyap V. Babli Shahu and Ors., (2023) 10 SCC 461
3. Prakash Rajaram Surve V. Udesh Shantaram Patekar, Application No. 3 of 2025 in Election Petition No. 10 of 2024 decided on 1 August 2025
4. Karikho Kri V. Nuney Tayang and Anr., AIR 2024 SC 2121
5. Mangani Lal Mandal V. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, (2012) 3 SCC 314
6. Shambhu Prasad Sharma V. Charandas Mahant and Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 390
7. Mairembam Prithviraj alias Prithviraj Singh V. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh, (2017) 2 SCC 487
8. Durai Muthuswami V. N. Nachiappan, (1973) 2 SCC 45
9. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya V. Aminul Haque Laskar and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509
10. Ravindra Dattaram Waikar V. Amol Gajanan Kirtikar and Ors., Application (L) No. 29930 of 2024 decided on 19 December 2024
11. Azhar Hussain V. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (Supp) SCC 31
12. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, AIR 2023 SC 2366
13. Balwan Singh V. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1960 SC 770
14. Raj Narain V. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Anr., (1972) 3 SCC 850
15. A. Sapa and Ors. V. Singora and Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 375
16. Sethi Roop Lal V. Malti Thapar, (1994) 2 SCC 579
17. Manubhai Nandlal Amorsey V. Popatlal Manilal Joshi and Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 372
18. Harish Chandra Bajpai V. Triloki Singh, (1957) SCR 371

[1] AIR 2023 SC 2366

[2] AIR 1960 SC 770

Appearances:

Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mahek Bookwala i/b Ms. Pooja Thorat, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, a/w. Mr. Sanket J. Bhase, for the Respondent-Applicant.

Ms. Neeta Jain i/b Mr. Alochan Naik, for Respondent No. 4.