SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J
Sangram Sampatrao Deshmukh – Appellant
Versus
The Election Commissioner Of India Through The Chief Election Commissioner And 79 Ors – Respondent
EP/2/2021
Decided On : 02-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINT
Important Point :
Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to comply results in dismissal.

Headnote:

(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 82, 83, 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv), 86(4) - Election Petition filed challenging the election of a returned candidate on grounds of corrupt practices and improper voter registration - Court held that the petition lacks concise statements of material facts and necessary particulars of corrupt practices, leading to dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. (Paras 3.4, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 11, 25)

(B) Election Disputes - Necessity of Pleadings - The Election Petition must contain concise statements of material facts to establish grounds for declaring an election void, failing which it is liable to be dismissed. (Paras 9.1, 9.5, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:

The Petitioner alleged that the election of the Respondent was void due to improper voter registration and corrupt practices, claiming that online voter registrations were allowed post-election announcement, affecting the election outcome. The Respondent was declared elected with a significant majority. (Paras 1, 6)

Findings of Court:

The Court found the Election Petition insufficient in detailing material facts and particulars required by the Act, leading to the conclusion that it did not disclose a cause of action. (Paras 9.1, 25)

Issues: The main issues were whether the Election Petition contained sufficient material facts and particulars to support the allegations of corrupt practices and improper voter registration. (Paras 9.1, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that strict compliance with statutory provisions is mandatory for an Election Petition; failure to provide necessary details leads to dismissal. (Paras 9.1, 25)

Result: Election Petition dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Election Petition No.2 of 2021 is filed by Mr. Sangram Sampatrao Deshmukh on 18.01.2021 for the following reliefs :-

    "A. This Hon'ble Court may after perusing the Election Petition and all the documents in the Petition and after considering the case be pleased to declare the Election of the Respondent No.4 to the Pune Division Graduates' constituency held on 1/12/2020 and the declaration of the result on 4/12/2020 as void in accordance with the grounds as set out under Section 100(1)(d) (iv) and Section 100(1)(d)iii) of the RP Act 1951 and this Election Petition may kindly be allowed; In the alternative to and without prejudice to prayer clause (A)

B. This Hon'ble Court may after perusing the Election Petition and all the documents in the Petition and after considering the case be pleased to declare the Election of the Respondent No.4 to the Pune Division Graduates' constituency held on 1/12/2020 and the declaration of the result on 4/12/2020 as void in accordance with the grounds as set out under Section 100(1)(d) (iv) and Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the RP Act 1951 and this Election Petition may kindly be allowed and the Petitioner be declared as duly elected for the Pune Division Graduates' constituency in accordance with Section 84 of the RP Act 1951."

2. Application (L) No.1145 of 2022 is filed by Mr. Arun Ganpati Lad - Respondent No.4 for dismissal of Election Petition under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short “the said Act”) read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for short "CPC"). Respondent No.4 is the returned candidate/elected candidate in the elections under challenge.

3. Application (L) No.22668 of 2021 is filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. Election Commission for the following reliefs :-

    "a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Election Commission of India (Respondent No. 1/Applicant No.1), The Chief Electoral Officer (Respondent No. 2/Applicant No. 2) and The Divisional Commissioner and Electoral Registration Officer and The Returning Officer (Respondent No.3)/Applicant No. 3) herein, cannot be made parties to the Election Petition.

b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to delete the names of the Election Commission of India (Respondent No. 1/Applicant No. 1), The Chief Electoral Officer (Respondent No. 2/Applicant No. 2) and The Divisional Commissioner and Electoral Registration Officer and The Returning Officer (Respondent No. 3)/Applicant No. 3) from the Election Petition No. 2 of 2021."

3.1. In effect, Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 seek deletion of their names from the Election Petition filed by Petitioner. When the present Election Petition and aforesaid Applications are heard, none is present for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Petition. The grounds on which the aforementioned Application is filed by Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are contained in Para Nos. 4 to 8 of the Application. It is contended therein that due to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Jyoti Basu & Ors. Vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors. 1982 (1) SCC 691 ; (ii) B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission & Ors., 1991 Suppl (2) SCC 624 and (iii) Michael B. Fernandes Vs. C. K. Jaffar Sharif & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1041, it is settled position of law that in view of the provisions of Sections 82 read with 86 (4) of the said Act, the Election Commission of India and its Officers cannot be impleaded as Respondents to the Election Petition. Hence Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 seek deletion of their names from the Election Petition. At the outset this Application of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is decided before proceeding with the Election Petition.

3.2. It is seen that Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Statutory Officers appointed under the said Act, acting under superintendence and control of the Election Commission of India. Section 82 of the said Act reads thus:-

    82. Parties to the Petition. - A Petitioner shall join as respondents to his Petition - (a) where the Petiti

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top