Election Petition Dismissed for Vague Pleadings, Lack of Material Facts on Illegal Voting: Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench) Cites RoPA S.83 & O.VII R.11 CPC - 2025-06-20

Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Challenging Dhule Lok Sabha Result Citing Lack of Material Facts

Aurangabad, Maharashtra: The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Arun R.Pedneker , has dismissed an election petition filed by Dr. Shri Subhash Ramrao Bhamre challenging the election of Smt. Shobha DineshBacchav from the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The dismissal, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RoPA), was primarily due to the petition's failure to provide material facts and particulars to substantiate allegations of illegal voting.

Case Background

Dr. Bhamre , who secured the second-highest number of votes, lost to Smt. Bacchav by a margin of 3,831 votes. His election petition primarily targeted alleged irregularities in the Malegaon Central Assembly constituency, a segment of the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency.

The petitioner alleged that:

1. Votes by Dead Persons: Approximately 4,378 votes were cast in the names of deceased individuals, primarily benefiting Smt. Bacchav . He claimed to have data from the Malegaon Municipal Corporation's death register to support this.

2. Multiple Voting: Around 3,329 individuals cast votes at multiple polling booths.

3. Non-Disclosure by Winner : Smt. Bacchav allegedly failed to disclose a pending criminal case (Crime No.0283 of 2019) in her nomination affidavit.

4. Uncounted Votes: The petitioner also pointed to an Election Commission admission that 2028 votes from four EVMs were not counted due to non-deletion of mock poll data.

Dr. Bhamre contended that these irregularities materially affected the election outcome and that excluding the alleged illegal votes would make him the candidate with the highest number of legitimate votes.

Respondent's Plea for Dismissal

Smt. Bacchav , the returned candidate (Respondent No.3), filed an application (Exhibit-16) seeking the dismissal of the election petition at the threshold. Her main arguments were: * The petition lacked material facts and was based on "baseless and bald allegations" and speculation. * No specific instances or sources were provided for allegations of votes cast by dead persons or by women in burkhas whose names were not on the voter list. * The petitioner failed to demonstrate how the alleged irregularities materially affected the election result. * Allegations regarding multiple voting lacked a credible source of information. * Initially, a jurisdictional challenge was raised concerning the presentation of the petition before the Aurangabad Bench.

Court's Findings and Reasoning

1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The Court first addressed the preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench to hear an election petition from Dhule district. Respondent No.3 argued that High Court Rules for election petitions had not been amended to include Dhule under Aurangabad Bench's purview for such matters, suggesting it should have been filed at the Principal Seat in Bombay.

Justice Pedneker , after examining Section 80A and 79(e) of the RoPA, Presidential Orders under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (which included Dhule under Aurangabad Bench's jurisdiction in 1996), and Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Laxmi Sadho Vs. Jagdish , concluded: > "The Election Petition arises from Dhule Parliamentary Constituency, and, thus, after the inclusion of district Dhule in the Presidential Order of 1996 to the Aurangabad Bench, the Election Petition is rightly presented before the Aurangabad Bench of High Court of Bombay notwithstanding that there is no corresponding amendment made in the High Court Rules for presentation of election petition as the High Court rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India are only procedural in nature and cannot override the substantial law i.e. the States Reorganisation Act." (Para 39)

2. Allegations of Illegal and Multiple Voting: This formed the crux of the petition. The Court found the pleadings insufficient and lacking material particulars.

* Votes by Dead Persons: While the petitioner claimed 4,378 dead persons' names were on the electoral roll, the Court noted: > "Presently, there is no material before the court to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons... by merely having names of dead persons on the electoral roll this court will not presume that votes are cast in their names." (Para 49) The Court highlighted the absence of affidavits from polling agents stating they observed such voting or raised objections. The reliance on party workers' information was deemed insufficient.

* Multiple Voting: Similar deficiencies were found regarding the allegation of 3,329 instances of multiple voting. The Court emphasized that it would not conduct a "fishing and roving inquiry" based on speculative allegations. > "This court would not undertake an inquiry to ascertain, whether voting has been cast in the name of dead persons or that there is multiple voting in the name of same persons without supporting pleadings and material in the Election Petition." (Para 53) The petitioner's attempt to get this data (Form 17-A, 17-C, CCTV footage) from the Election Commission to substantiate his claims post-filing the petition was seen as an admission of lack of initial material.

3. Non-Counting of EVM Votes: The Court acknowledged the Election Commission's statement about 2,028 votes from four EVMs not being counted. However, it noted: > "Prima faice, no case is made out for setting aside of the Election for the reason of non counting or irregular counting. No such, specific ground with particulars is also raised in the Election Petition." (Para 42) The Court also observed that the Returning Officer had rejected objections to counting, stating verification occurred at three stages with no technical mistakes found.

4. Non-Filing of Affidavit in Form 25 (Corrupt Practice): The petitioner stated that Respondent No.3 suppressed a pending criminal case. However, the Court observed: > "There is no pleading in the Election Petition that non mention of the criminal case has resulted in undue influence on the voters and in turn constituted corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of The People Act." (Para 54) Since the petitioner explicitly stated he was not alleging 'Corrupt Practice', the Court found the absence of a Form 25 affidavit (mandatory for corrupt practice allegations) inconsequential to this specific claim, and the ground itself insufficient as pleaded.

Legal Standard for Election Petitions

Reiterating established legal principles, Justice Pedneker stated: > "In the election Petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected Under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Election Petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election Petition..." (Para 55)

Final Decision

Concluding that the election petition failed to meet the stringent requirements of pleading material facts necessary to establish a cause of action for the grounds raised, particularly concerning illegal voting, the Court allowed Smt. Bacchav 's application (Exhibit-16) and dismissed Dr. Bhamre 's Election Petition No. 2 of 2024. All pending applications were also dismissed.