Bombay High Court Dismisses Vinayak Raut's Election Petition Against Narayan Rane for Vague Pleadings

In a decisive blow to the election challenge mounted by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Vinayak Raut, the Bombay High Court has dismissed his petition contesting the 2024 Lok Sabha victory of BJP MP Narayan Rane from the Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg constituency. Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, presiding over the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur , ruled that the petition failed to meet the mandatory pleading standards under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , and was liable for rejection at the threshold.

The Election and the Challenge

The 2024 Lok Sabha election for the 46th Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg constituency saw a closely fought contest. According to the judgment, polling took place on May 7, 2024 , and results were declared on June 4, 2024 . Narayan Rane secured 4,48,514 votes, defeating Vinayak Raut who garnered 4,00,656 votes. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Raut filed an election petition on July 9, 2024 , alleging corrupt practices by Rane and his supporters.

The petition's core allegations, contained in paragraphs 5(l), 5(m), and 5(n), claimed that BJP workers conducted campaign activities after the Model Code of Conduct deadline on May 5, 2024 , and engaged in voter bribery and intimidation. Raut also cited a complaint filed with election authorities on May 16, 2024 , and submitted video footage and newspaper reports as evidence.

Rane's Motion for Rejection

Narayan Rane, through Senior Advocate Satish Maneshinde , promptly filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code , seeking dismissal of the election petition. The application argued that the petition lacked concise statements of material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices as mandated by Section 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of the People Act. The applicant contended that the allegations were vague, failed to disclose names, dates, and places, and that the supporting affidavit was not in the prescribed Form 25 under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules .

Rane's legal team relied on a series of precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar , to establish that omission of even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and renders the petition liable for summary dismissal .

Raut's Defense

Opposing the application, Raut's counsel Asim Sarode argued that the pleadings, read together with the annexed documents—including newspaper clippings, video footage with 65B certificates, and the complaint—provided sufficient grounds to establish corrupt practices . He contended that the petition disclosed a cause of action under Sections 100(1)(b), (d)(ii), and (iv) of the Act and that a full-fledged trial was necessary to assess the evidence. Sarode further submitted that any defects in the affidavit or verification were curable and could not justify rejection at the preliminary stage.

Court's Analysis: Vague Pleadings Cannot Be Cured

Justice Brahme, after a careful examination of the averments, found that the allegations in paragraphs 5(l) to 5(n) were "extremely vague" and lacked material particulars . The court noted that the petition failed to specify the time, place, and identity of the persons allegedly involved in the corrupt practices . For instance, paragraph 5(n) referred to a " BJP worker, Mr. Jadhav"—a common surname—without further identification. The court observed that the video footage and news reports could not fill the gaps left by deficient pleadings.

The judgment emphasized the settled legal position that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts . Citing Kanimozhi Karunanidhi , the court reiterated: " 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 ."

While acknowledging that defects in the affidavit or verification could be cured, the court drew a distinction: the non-compliance with Section 83(1)(a) regarding material facts was a substantial defect that went to the root of the petition. The court held that the petition, as framed, did not disclose a cause of action for any ground under Section 100(1) of the Act and therefore could not be taken to trial.

Key Observations

The court's reasoning was anchored in several critical observations:

"The corrupt practice as alleged in paragraph no. 5(l) regarding carrying out campaign on 06.05.2024 is very vague and lacks material particulars namely; time, place and identity of the persons who were campaigning."

"Any omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the R.P. Act."

"The non-compliance of Section 83 is a substantial defect which cannot be cured and the Election Petition is liable to be rejected."

The Final Verdict

Justice Brahme allowed Rane's application and rejected Election Petition No. 7 of 2024 in its entirety. The court ordered that the petition "shall stand rejected" with no order as to costs. The decision upholds the strict pleading requirements for election petitions and reinforces the principle that vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot sustain a challenge to an election result. For Narayan Rane, the judgment brings finality to the electoral dispute, while for Vinayak Raut, it closes the door on his legal challenge without a trial on merits.