Bombay HC: Election Petition Lacking Material Facts on Falsity or Material Impact of 'Spouse No. 2' Disclosure in Form 26 Liable for Rejection under RP Act - 2025-06-24

Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Challenging MLA's 'Second Spouse' Disclosure

Mumbai: The High Court of Bombay, in a significant ruling on election law, has rejected an election petition challenging the victory of Rajendra Dhedya Gavit from the 130-Palghar-ST Assembly Constituency. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that an election petition lacking a concise statement of material facts demonstrating falsity, corrupt practice with full particulars, or how an election was materially affected by the alleged irregularities is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court allowed an interim application filed by the respondent, Rajendra Gavit , seeking the dismissal of the election petition filed by Sudhir Brijendra Jain . The petition was primarily based on Gavit’s declaration of Smt. Rupali Gavit as his "Spouse No. 2" in his Form-26 affidavit, which Jain alleged was a false statement and a violation of election rules.

Case Background

Sudhir Brijendra Jain , a voter and social activist, challenged Rajendra Gavit 's election in the 2024 General Election to the State Assembly. Gavit, a Shiv Sena candidate, was declared the winner on November 23, 2024.

Jain 's petition argued that: 1. Gavit’s declaration of a second wife was false, as a second marriage during the subsistence of the first would be void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Adding a column for "Spouse No. 2" in Form-26 violated Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, as the prescribed format allegedly did not allow for such a declaration. 3. These actions constituted corrupt practices under Section 123(4) (false statement) and Section 123(2) (undue influence) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), and grounds for declaring the election void under Sections 100(1)(b) (corrupt practice), 100(1)(d)(i) (improper acceptance of nomination), and 100(1)(d)(iv) (non-compliance with Act/Rules materially affecting the result).

Arguments Presented

Petitioner (Sudhir Jain , represented by Sr. Adv. Neeta Karnik ): * The declaration of Smt. Rupali Gavit as a spouse was false and intended to unduly influence tribal voters, as she belonged to the local tribal community. * Modification of Form-26 rendered the nomination defective and improperly accepted. * The petition contained sufficient averments for a full trial.

Respondent ( Rajendra Gavit , represented by Mr. Nitin Gangal ): * The election petition lacked a cause of action and did not contain a concise statement of material facts as required by Section 83 of the RP Act. * The disclosure of the second marriage was an honest declaration, aligning with the voter's right to information, and not prohibited. * Gavit, belonging to the Bhil tribal community, claimed polygamy was a permissible custom. * The petition failed to aver how the election result was materially affected by the alleged discrepancies. * There was no specific averment that the marriage with Smt. Rupali Gavit never took place.

Court's Rationale and Key Findings

Justice Marne meticulously examined the legal provisions and precedents, emphasizing the strict pleading requirements for election petitions.

On Form-26 Modification and Disclosure (Sec 100(1)(d)(i) & (iv) of RP Act): The court found that adding a column for "Spouse No. 2" to make an honest disclosure did not render the nomination defective.

"In my view, therefore mere disclosure of information in addition to the one required in the prescribed format would not ipso-facto render nomination to be defective. Therefore, addition of column for giving particulars of income and income tax of Spouse No. 2 in the Affidavit in Form 26 by the Respondent does not constitute a valid ground of challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act."

The court referred to Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India , which underscore the voter's right to know and the importance of full disclosure by candidates. Non-disclosure, rather than honest additional disclosure, would be problematic. Crucially, for a challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), the petitioner failed to plead how the alleged non-compliance materially affected the election result.

"There is no pleading in the entire Election Petition to demonstrate as to how election of Respondent is materially affected on account of alleged violation of Rule 4A of the Election Rules by him."

On Corrupt Practice – False Statement (Sec 123(4) of RP Act): The court noted that Section 123(4) pertains to false statements about the personal character or conduct of another candidate . Even if it applied to statements about oneself, the petitioner had not pleaded that the marriage with Smt. Rupali Gavit never occurred .

"Thus, it is not a case of the Petitioner that Respondent has never married Smt. Rupali Gavit . On the contrary, he has specifically pleaded in para-10(d) of the petition that :- 'The Petitioner submits that in the present case the Respondent has already married and abovenamed “ Rupali Gavit ” is second wife of the Respondent.'" The court distinguished between the legal validity of a marriage and the falsity of a declared relationship.

On Corrupt Practice – Undue Influence (Sec 123(2) of RP Act): The allegation that declaring a second wife from a local tribe was to exert undue influence lacked "full particulars" as mandated by Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act.

"As against the requirement of pleading full particulars under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 83(1) of the Act, the Petitioner has merely made a suggestion that disclosure of name of second wife-Smt. Rupali Gavit was intentional and deliberately aimed at exerting undue influence over the voters."

Strict Pleading Requirements: The judgment reiterated that election petitions are statutory proceedings requiring strict adherence to the RP Act. Citing Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar , the court emphasized:

"Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad."

The court found that the petitioner's averments did not constitute a complete cause of action for any of the grounds invoked.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed Rajendra Gavit 's application and rejected Sudhir Jain 's election petition. Justice Marne concluded:

"After considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view that the Election Petition lacks concise statement of material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the Act... So far as the ground of corrupt practice... the memo of Election Petition does not set forth full particulars of corrupt practice... In my view therefore, Petitioner has failed to disclose real cause of action for challenging the election of the Respondent..."

This judgment underscores the necessity for petitioners in election matters to provide specific, material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices. Mere allegations of procedural deviations or inferential claims of falsity, without establishing a direct link to material impact on the election or fulfilling the stringent requirements of the RP Act, are insufficient to sustain an election petition. It also suggests that candid and comprehensive disclosures by candidates, even if they involve adding details to prescribed forms, may be viewed positively in light of the voter's fundamental right to information.