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

2026 Supreme(MP) 747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, J.
Kankar Munjare – Petitioner 
Versus 
Bharti Pardhi – Respondent 
Election Petition No. 20 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Nitya Nand Mishra, learned counsel.
For the Respondent:Shri G.S. Baghel, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri K.K. Raidas, learned counsel.

Election petitions must contain precise, specific pleadings with full material particulars of corrupt practices. General allegations that would not materially affect the election result, particularly when the victory margin is substantial, are insufficient to disclose a cause of action and justify dismissal in limine.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 82, 83, 86, 100 and 101 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Election Petition - Dismissal in limine - Pleadings in an election petition must be precise, specific, and unambiguous - Allegations of corrupt practices must be supported by full material particulars as required under Section 83 - General and vague allegations without documentary evidence or specific data are insufficient to disclose a cause of action (Paras 10, 11, 14).

(B) Materiality of Error - Where the margin of victory is substantial, a discrepancy in a single polling booth, such as a mechanical failure or counting error, that would not change the overall result of the election cannot be a ground to set aside the election in the absence of pleadings or proof regarding wider systemic failure (Para 9).

(C) Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) - Vague allegations regarding the battery percentage of voting machines, without specific data on battery levels at the start and end of polls or identification of specific faulty machines, fail to establish a cause of action (Para 10).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate on grounds of corrupt practices and electoral irregularities. It was alleged that a discrepancy existed between the polled votes recorded in Form 17-GA and the total displayed by the voting machine at one polling station. Additionally, the petitioner contended that voting machines were replaced or altered, suggesting that battery levels remained unusually high (99%) after the voting period and subsequent storage in a strong room. Complaints were also raised regarding the impartiality of administrative officers. The returned candidate sought dismissal of the petition, highlighting a victory margin of over 6 lakh votes.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations regarding the battery percentage were vague and unsupported by data. It was observed that a counting error in a single booth, even if proven, would not have altered the election result given the massive margin of victory. Furthermore, the petition failed to provide material particulars as required under Section 83 of the Act, specifically failing to identify the individuals who had access to the machines or providing specific instances of collusion between the returned candidate and the administrative machinery.

Issues: Whether the election petition disclosed a valid cause of action and complied with the statutory requirement of providing full material particulars for alleged corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Ratio Decidendi: Election petitions must contain precise and unambiguous pleadings. When a petition fails to disclose material particulars of corrupt practices and the alleged irregularities are shown to be insignificant relative to the margin of victory, the petition does not disclose a cause of action and is liable to be dismissed in limine under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 86 of the Act.

Result: Application allowed and Election Petition dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • election law
    • election petitions
      • parties to election petitions
        • necessary and proper parties (Para 2)
      • grounds for declaring election void
        • corrupt practices (Para 9, 10, 14)
        • material effect on result (Para 7, 9, 17)
      • dismissal of election petition
        • lack of material particulars (Para 9, 10, 11, 14, 17)
        • delay in filing application (Para 14, 15)
    • electronic voting machines
      • counting discrepancies (Para 7, 9, 17)
      • battery and tampering allegations (Para 4, 8, 10, 17)
  • practice and procedure
    • pleadings
      • material facts and particulars (Para 9, 10, 11, 14, 17)
    • summary rejection
      • order 7 rule 11 cpc (Para 3, 11, 14, 17)

Table of Contents

1. Election petition under Sections 80, 80-A, 81 and 100, Representation of People Act, 1951, alleging EVM counting discrepancies, battery-charging irregularities, and corrupt practices, seeking to void returned candidate's election. (Para 1 )

2. Petitioner alleged EVM and battery irregularities and corrupt practices; respondent sought dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Sections 83/86, RP Act, for lack of material particulars. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 )

3. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed; election petition dismissed for failing to disclose a cause of action and lacking material particulars. (Para 17 )

4. Can an election petition be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of material particulars and cause of action?

Yes. An election petition must state precise, specific and unambiguous material facts; if it discloses no cause of action under Sections 81, 83 and 100 of the Representation of People Act, it is liable to be dismissed in limine under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 )

5. What material particulars are required to plead corrupt practice in an election petition?

A petitioner must plead full material particulars identifying who had access to the EVM, how the returned candidate or an agent was involved, and consent or role. General allegations about battery charging or tampering, without supporting data or documents, are insufficient to constitute corrupt practice. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 )

6. Can an isolated EVM counting discrepancy in one polling booth materially affect an election result?

No. Without pleadings or proof that the discrepancy affected the result, an isolated EVM error in one booth cannot vitiate an election, especially where the winning margin is large; whether each machine malfunctioned is a question of fact, not presumption. (Para 7 , 9 )

7. Is the Election Commission of India a necessary or proper party to an election petition?

No. Under Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, except the candidate or candidates, no other person is a proper or necessary party to an election petition; the Election Commission is not a necessary party. (Para 2 )

8. Does delay in filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC preclude dismissal of an election petition?

No. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 may be entertained even after several months because the election petition remains at a preliminary stage until issues are framed, and the application is decided only on the pleadings. (Para 14 , 15 )

ORDER :

AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. This Election Petition is filed by the petitioner Kankar Munjare under Section 80 , 80-A, 81 and Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 with the following prayer and important grounds/ facts as mentioned in paragraphs 17 to 20 which are reproduced below :-

Prayer.

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

I. Call for the entire record from the District Election Officer/Election Commission of India in respect of Parliament Constituency:15- Balaghat M.P in General Election 2024.

II. Declare the election of the respondent no. 1, who is the returned candidate from Lok Sabha Constituency, 15- Balaghat (M.P.) as null and void;

III. To award appropriate punishment to those found to be involved in corrupt practice and pass such order.

IV. Any other relief to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the Interest of Justice may. also be granted;

V. Cost of the petition.”

Important grounds / facts:-

“17. That after the polls the presiding officers furnished a copy of record of votes in the form of Form 17-(ga)of the Polling station 88, Madhyamik Shala, Jayama wherein the total number of Polled votes are shown as 372, while during counting when the EVM machine of the Polling station when Total button was pressed the _total number of votes displayed were 428 votes. The said discrepancy was pointed out by one Sunil Kumar Agarwal, the representative of INC Party against which the Returning officer had informed that the total votes were 428. Copy of the record of votes in the form of Form (17-(ga) along with the complaint of discrepancy is annexed herewith as Annexure P/8.

18. That the petitioner through his representatives/counting agents had submitted the complaints and apprised the concerned authorities about the corrupt practice that have been committed by the returned candidate/respondent no. 1 or possibly her election agent or someone at her instance.

19. That on 04.06.2024 the petitioner’s representatives/ counting agents Gokul Mohaare, Sehajlal Upwanshi Patel, Punaram Humnekar, Jitendra Lilhare, Rakesh Tivade, Ravi Kuthe Jitendra aka Raja Lilhare have apprised through various letters intimating the authorities of the fact that the election was concluded on 19.05.2024 and thereafter EVMs were taken to strong room. The EVMs were shown to the counting agent only on 04.06.2024 and at that time they were 99% charged. It was also submitted that it is less likely that the EVMs maintained the optimum value despite being used for voting (atleast 10-15% battery should have been drained) and thereafter kept in the strong room without any interference. The EVMs were replaced/altered in collusion to obtain favourable results by the respondent no. 1. A copy of said complaints is annexed collectively as Annexure P-9.

20. That the petitioner had already on 30.03.2024 ‘requested the concerned authorities that the Collector, Balaghat and be transferred before the elections. It was apprised that a video had went viral where some of the miscreants could be seen opening the. Postal Ballot paper and attempting to manipulate the result of state legislative assembly, 2023. The news was covered by the major news channels and media. The Tehsildar and SDM were suspended holding them to be accountable. Apart from that the Collector Balaghat had also committed some serious lapses in the election process. The collector had also re- instated and had given some important posts to the tainted officers. Also, the petitioner had submitted a complaint against the S.P Balaghat in pursuant to a fake encounter and had already requested the concerned authorities that the S.P, Balaghat be transferred before the elections so as to ensure fearless, free and fair elections, but no heed was ever paid to the requests made. Copy of such representations have been annexed. collectively as Annexure P-10. Thus, it is submitted that the process of election was not fair and healthy and, therefore, this p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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