Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Sarfaraz, S/o Pashu Qureshi - Petitioner
Versus
The Returning Officer For Municipal Corporation General Election 2025 Of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar And Anr. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2026
Decided On : 02-01-2026
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, Sarfaraz, challenged the order dated 31st December, 2025, passed by the Returning Officer, which rejected his nomination form due to issues with the affidavits supporting the nomination (!) (!) .
The primary reason for rejection was that the affidavit submitted with the nomination form did not contain the petitioner’s signature (!) .
The petitioner filed a second affidavit on 29th December, 2025, on a non-judicial stamp paper, claiming it supported his nomination (!) (!) .
Upon review, the court observed that the first affidavit was defective because it lacked a signature, date, month, and year, and the notarization raised questions about its validity, as the notary's stamp was affixed without the petitioner’s signature and with blank spaces (!) .
The second affidavit also appeared defective because, despite the petitioner’s signature, it contained overwriting on the date, with conflicting dates on the notary stamps (26th December, 2025, and 29th December, 2025), and the notary's stamp was blank, raising doubts about its authenticity (!) .
The court noted that the affidavits were fundamentally flawed and could not be considered valid support for the nomination (!) (!) .
The court declined to grant interim relief and indicated that the matter requires further investigation regarding the affidavits’ authenticity (!) (!) .
The court also granted permission to add the State Election Commission as a party to the proceedings (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to nomination form rejection. (Para 2) |
| 2. argument regarding subsequent affidavit. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis of affidavit defects. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. denial of interim relief. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Leave to add the State Election Commission as a party Respondent. Addition be carried out forthwith.
2. The Petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated 31st December, 2025 passed by the Returning Officer, by which the nomination form was rejected on the ground that the affidavit supporting the nomination form did not carry the signature of the Petitioner candidate, as submitted before the Returning Officer.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has vehemently canvassed that though the affidavit filed along with the nomination form before the last date for filing, did not carry the signature of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had filed another affidavit on 29th December, 2025 on a Rs. 100/- Indian non-judicial stamp paper.
4. I have perused both the affidavits. The first affidavit, which is stated to be in support of the nomination form, cannot be termed as an affidavit from any angle. The date, month, and year are left blank. A stamp is affixed by Adv. Sudat G. Wahulkar, Notary, Government of India, District Aurangabad. It is a matter requiring investigation as to how the Notary could affix the stamp certifying that the Petitioner affirmed the affidavit on oath before him when the Petitioner has not even signed the document. There are blank spaces with regard to the date, month, and year, and the Advocate has not signed for identifying the Petitioner.
5. The second affidavit, which the Petitioner is strenuously contending to be in support of the nomination form, indicates the date of purchase of the stamp paper as 29th December, 2025. The stamp affixed by Adv. Sudat G. Wahulkar shows overwriting to indicate the date as 26th December, 2025, whereas another stamp affixed by the same Notary mentions the date as 29th December, 2025. The signature of the Petitioner appears on this affidavit. However, the Advocate has not signed for identification. Further, the notary stamp appears to be completely blank, which is apparent at a mere glance. As such, this affidavit is also defective.
6. In these circumstances, the Petitioner prays that the present Petition be considered by this Court.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances recorded herein above, no interim relief.
Proper signatures are essential on affidavits supporting election nominations; deficiencies in documentation can lead to rejection.
The absence of signatures on the declaration in nomination forms is a substantial defect that cannot be trivialized as a mere formality.
The failure to rectify substantial defects in a nomination paper justifies its rejection under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The nomination was rightly rejected due to substantial defects which could not be corrected post-deadline, validating the Returning Officer’s actions.
The defect in the nomination form was of a substantial character that could not be rectified at a later date, and reliance on an interim order from a similar case was unsustainable due to factual dis....
Free and fair elections are the very foundation of democratic institutions and just as it is said that justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done, similarly elections should not only....
The court upheld the returning officer's acceptance of a nomination despite omissions in the affidavit, determining these defects were not substantial and did not materially affect the election resul....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
