Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Md. Arif Lalan Khan S/o Lalan Khan (Alias) Naseem Khan – Appellant
Versus
Dilip Bhausaheb Lande and Others – Respondents
Election Petition No. 9 of 2025, Application In EP No. 26 of 2025, Application In EP (L) No. 26326 of 2025
Decided On : 07-03-2026
For the Appellants : Virendra Tulzapurkar, R.D. Soni, Sakshi Agarwal, Bipin Joshi
For the Respondents: Shardul Singh, Ninad Thikekar, Naira Jejeebhoy, Arun Panickar, Tanmay Pawar, Vinay Nair, Ayush Yadav
Election petitions lacking material facts on corrupt practices like undue influence or material effect of statutory non-compliance must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 83 RP Act.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 83, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(iv), 123(2), 126 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Election petition - Rejection for non-disclosure of cause of action - No material facts pleaded to show roadshow during prohibited 48-hour period constituted undue influence as corrupt practice or materially affected result; affidavit with excessive civil case disclosures and omitted asset details neither corrupt practice nor shown to materially impact outcome; EVM tampering apprehension without linkage to cause - Petition liable to dismissal. (Paras 24-80)
(B) Corrupt practices - Undue influence under Section 123(2) requires pleading direct/indirect interference or attempt with free exercise of electoral right subverting voter volition; mere influence or violation of Section 126 (prohibition on public meetings/processions) insufficient without showing subversion. (Paras 35-47)
(C) Section 100(1)(d)(iv) - Non-compliance with Act/rules requires pleading how result insofar as returned candidate concerned materially affected; bald averment of effect on outcome inadequate. (Paras 52-70)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, losing by margin of 20,625 votes, challenged election alleging star campaigner’s roadshow/campaign near polling stations during silent period violated prohibitions, intended to influence voters; affidavit misleadingly listed civil cases with criminal and omitted residential asset; EVMs sought verified due to tampering apprehension, fees paid.
Findings of Court:
Pleadings fail across all grounds to disclose material facts for corrupt practice or material effect; Section 126 violation criminal offence pursued separately; EVM verification proceeds independently.
Issues: Whether petition contains concise statement of material facts under Section 83 for invoking Sections 100(1)(b) corrupt practice or 100(1)(d)(iv) non-compliance; sufficiency for undue influence from roadshow, affidavit defects, EVM issues.
Ratio Decidendi: Election petition must plead entire bundle of material facts constituting complete cause of action; omission of single fact fatal, allowing rejection; distinction between mere influence/campaign violation and undue influence requiring interference with free electoral will; non-compliance needs pleaded material effect on result, not bald assertion.
Result: Rejection application allowed; election petition dismissed. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election petition challenges victory on corrupt practices, violations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petition lacks material facts for cause of action. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. material facts pleaded; no need for result impact in corrupt practice. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. pleadings analyzed for shinde visit, affidavit, evm issues. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. section 83 requires material facts, corrupt practice particulars. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. undue influence requires interference with free electoral will. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. section 126 violation is criminal, not automatically corrupt practice. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. section 100(1)(d)(iv) needs material effect on result pleaded. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 9. omission of material facts warrants petition dismissal. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 10. affidavit defects lack undue influence or material effect. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 11. evm verification apprehension insufficient for cause of action. (Para 77 , 78) |
| 12. petition dismissed for lacking material facts. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
JUDGMENT :
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Context and Factual Background:
1. This Election Petition is filed by Shri. Md. Arif Lalan Khan (“Khan”), challenging the election victory of Respondent No.1, Shri. Dilip Bhausaheb Lande (“Lande”), who was returned from Constituency No. 168 i.e. the Chandivali Assembly Constituency, Mumbai (“Constituency”) to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, on November 20, 2024 (“Polling Date”)
2. The Application in Election Petition No. 26 of 2025 has been filed by Lande for rejection of the Election Petition (“Rejection Application”) under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on the premise that the Election Petition does not disclose a cause of action, lacking in pleading of material facts. By consent, the Rejection Application was taken up for final hearing.
3. Khan was the closest rival to Lande, losing the election to Lande by a margin of 20,625 votes. Lande polled 1,24,641 votes while Khan polled 1,04,016 votes.
4. In the Petition, Khan has prayed for setting aside the poll outcome, returning Lande to represent the Constituency under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“the Act”); and for Khan, as the second highest recipient of votes, to be declared as the winner of the elections under Section 101 of the Act. During the hearing of the Rejection Application, Khan gave up the relief under Section 101, which is discussed subsequently in this judgement.
5. The grounds of challenge to the election are essentially based on the following three sets of facts:
A) On the Polling Date, at 3:08 p.m. Shri. Eknath Shinde (“Shinde”), the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, who was also designated as a “star campaigner” of the Shiv Sena, on whose ticket Lande contested, visited the Constituency, in particular, at the Kajupada Pipeline Road. Shinde’s visit was allegedly converted into a campaign and road show from Kajupada Ghas Compound to St. Jude’s High School, canvassing and appealing to voters during the prohibited silent period of 48 hours prior to closing of the poll. This is alleged to be in direct violation of Section 126 of the Act, and Clauses 8.1 and 8.11 of the Model Code of Conduct (“Model Code”) formulated by the Election Commission of India (“Election Commission”).
B) Lande filed his disclosure affidavit as per Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which was meant to conform to Form 26 (“Form 26 Affidavit”), which necessitates making material disclosures and disclosure of pending criminal cases, but Lande included in it multiple civil cases, thereby giving a misleading appearance of Lande being involved in civil disputes of a degree far more than being arraigned in criminal proceedings; and C) Khan apprehends t
