Back
: Non-Supply of RTI Information After Election Results Not Under Section 123(7)
In a significant ruling on election law, the held that the failure to provide information sought under the after the declaration of election results cannot constitute a under . Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, while allowing an application under , rejected an election petition challenging the victory of Sunil Dnyandev Kamble from the Pune Cantonment Legislative Assembly Constituency in the 2024 elections.
Background of the Challenge
The election petition was filed by Ramesh Anandrao Bagwe, the defeated candidate who secured 65,712 votes against Kamble's 76,032 votes. Bagwe sought to declare the election void on multiple grounds: alleged non-compliance with regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines, corrupt practices under Section 123(7) based on the non-supply of RTI information, irregularities in EVM-VVPAT machines, and improper inclusion of voters in the supplementary voter list after the last date of nomination.
Arguments for Rejection
Sunil Kamble, the returned candidate, moved an application under read with , arguing that the election petition failed to disclose any . His counsel, , contended that the press note issued by the on was sufficient compliance with Section 61A, and that the allegation of under Section 123(7) was baseless since the RTI application was made after the results were declared on . He further argued that the allegations regarding EVM tampering and voter list manipulation were vague and lacked .
Court's Reasoning on Key Issues
Compliance with Section 61A – EVM Notification
The court categorically rejected the argument that a separate notification was required under Section 61A. Relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in , Justice Deshmukh observed that the section only requires the to specify that voting would be by voting machines, and the issuance of a press note meets this requirement. The petition did not even allege that the Commission had failed to specify the use of EVMs—it merely claimed absence of a notification.
The court noted:
"A plain reading of Section 61A does not mandate any requirement of issuance of notification. The provision requires that the
has to specify that giving and recording of votes would be by voting machine."
Under Section 123(7) – RTI Information
The most notable part of the judgment dealt with the claim that non-supply of RTI information amounted to . The court held that the essence of Section 123(7) is procurement of assistance for furthering the prospects of a candidate's election during the election process. Since the RTI application was made four days after the results were declared, the refusal to supply information could not be said to have procured any assistance for the candidate's election prospects.
The judgment states:
"The non-supply of the information under the RTI Act, after the results have been declared, does not constitute assistance for furthering of prospects of the candidate's election. The pleading of non-supply of information under RTI Act does not constitute a ground for
."
Allegations on EVM Irregularities and Voter List
The court found the pleadings regarding EVM tampering to be lacking particulars—no specific machine serial numbers, seals, or instances of malfunction were pleaded. Similarly, the claim about improper addition of voters in the supplementary list was unsupported by any demonstration that such votes were improperly received or that they the outcome. The petition did not even annex the alleged voter lists.
Key Observations
The court emphasised that for an election to be declared void under , it must be shown not just that there was non-compliance with the Constitution or the RP Act, but that such non-compliance the result of the returned candidate. Mere repetition of statutory language is insufficient.
It further noted that requires full particulars of any , including names of parties, dates, and places. The petition was found lacking in these details.
Final Decision
Allowing the application, Justice Deshmukh rejected the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that the petition failed to make out a for declaring the election void. All interim applications were disposed of as infructuous.
This ruling reinforces the strict pleading standards required in election petitions and clarifies that post-election RTI denials cannot be retroactively labelled as corrupt practices under election law.
