Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Over Missing Material Facts

In a sharp reminder that election challenges demand rigorous pleading rather than broad allegations, the Bombay High Court has thrown out a petition seeking to overturn the 2024 Chandivali Assembly constituency result.

A Familiar Rematch in Chandivali

Md. Arif Lalan Khan lost to Dilip Bhausaheb Lande by 20,625 votes in the Maharashtra Assembly elections held on 20 November 2024. Khan, the runner-up from Constituency No. 168, filed Election Petition No. 9 of 2025 alleging three main grounds: an illegal roadshow by then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during the 48-hour prohibitory period, misleading disclosures in Lande’s Form 26 affidavit, and potential tampering with Electronic Voting Machines.

Lande responded with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking summary rejection, arguing that the petition lacked the material facts necessary to disclose a cause of action. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan took up the rejection application for final hearing by consent.

The Three-Pronged Attack That Fell Short

Khan alleged that Shinde’s visit to Kajupada Pipeline Road at 3:08 p.m. on polling day was converted into a campaign roadshow near polling stations, violating Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act and the Model Code of Conduct. He further claimed that Lande’s Form 26 affidavit listed numerous civil cases alongside criminal ones to create a misleading impression and suppressed details of his long-occupied residential premises. Finally, Khan expressed apprehension of EVM tampering and sought verification of 20 machines after paying the required fees.

Justice Sundaresan examined whether these allegations satisfied the strict pleading requirements of Section 83 of the RPA, which mandates a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged.

Distinguishing Influence from Undue Influence

The court conducted a forensic analysis of the pleadings to determine whether Khan had properly invoked “undue influence” under Section 123(2) of the RPA. While acknowledging that Shinde’s appearance could energise party loyalists, the judgment stressed that such influence alone does not amount to corrupt practice.

The pleadings merely described waving, blessings captured in viral photographs, and appeals for votes. They stopped short of alleging threats, coercion, inducement, or any subversion of the electorate’s free will. The court observed that legitimate canvassing remains permissible in a democracy and that the distinction between ordinary influence and undue influence had not been bridged in the petition.

Why a Bald Averment Is Not Enough

Even treating the Shinde visit as a potential violation of Section 126 for the separate purpose of Section 100 (1)(d)(iv), the petition still failed. The court noted the absence of any pleaded link showing how the alleged breach materially affected the margin of 20,625 votes. A simple assertion that “but for the visit” Khan would have won was held insufficient.

Similar pleading deficiencies plagued the Form 26 allegations and the EVM apprehension claims. No material facts demonstrated how excessive civil-case disclosures constituted undue influence or altered the result. The EVM verification request, while procedurally permissible, was not tied to any alleged irregularity that could vitiate the election.

Key Observations from the Judgment

“The pleadings indicate that Shinde visited during prohibited campaign hours; practically ran a campaign; canvassed and appealed for votes in close proximity to five polling stations… It does not even have a whisper of whether during such visit, any threat, coercion, inducement, fraud or any misrepresentation was made.”

“Material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action… Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action.”

“A mere non-compliance or breach… by itself, does not result in invalidating the election of a returned candidate under (1)(d)(iv). The sine qua non for declaring the election… is further proof of the fact that such breach… has resulted in materially affecting the result.”

Practical Consequences and Future Direction

The Rejection Application was allowed. The election petition stands dismissed. Importantly, the court clarified that its decision does not bar the ongoing random check of the 20 EVM sets already permitted or the pursuit of any criminal proceedings arising from the alleged Section 126 violation.

By insisting on precise material facts rather than conclusions, the judgment reinforces that election petitions are serious proceedings that cannot rest on conjecture. Future challengers will need to demonstrate not merely what went wrong, but how those wrongs crossed the statutory thresholds capable of altering electoral outcomes.

Justice Sundaresan’s ruling adds to the well-settled line of authority that courts will not lightly interfere with democratic mandates without pleadings that satisfy the exacting standards of the Representation of the People Act.