Honest Disclosure of Second Spouse in Form 26 Not a Corrupt Practice or Ground to Void Election: Bombay High Court - 2025-06-27

Law, Judgments & Legal Insights.

Honest Disclosure of Second Spouse in Form 26 Not a Ground to Invalidate Election, Rules Bombay High Court

MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA – In a significant ruling on election law, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of Rajendra Dhedya Gavit from the Palghar (ST) Assembly Constituency, holding that a candidate's honest and voluntary disclosure of a second spouse in the Form 26 affidavit does not constitute a corrupt practice or a valid ground to void an election.

Justice Sandeep V.Marne , while allowing an application to reject the petition at the preliminary stage, observed that an election petition must meet the strict pleading requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and cannot be maintained on vague allegations or by questioning a candidate's transparent disclosures.

---

Background of the Case

The election petition was filed by Sudhir Brijendra Jain , a voter and social activist, challenging the election of Rajendra Dhedya Gavit in the 2024 State Assembly elections. The petitioner's primary grievance was that Mr. Gavit , in his mandatory Form 26 affidavit, had added a column for "Spouse No. 2" to declare details about Smt. Rupali Gavit , in addition to his first wife.

The petitioner contended that this act was illegal on multiple grounds:

1. False Statement: The second marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, making the declaration "false" and a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(4) of the RP Act.

2. Improper Nomination: Modifying the prescribed format of Form 26 rendered the nomination defective, and its acceptance by the Returning Officer was improper under Section 100(1)(d)(i).

3. Non-Compliance: The modification amounted to non-compliance with election rules, materially affecting the result under Section 100(1)(d)(iv).

4. Undue Influence: The declaration was allegedly made to influence local tribal voters, as Smt. Rupali Gavit belongs to that community.

---

Submissions by the Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner, Smt. Neeta Karnik (Senior Advocate), argued that the petition contained all necessary averments for a full trial. She asserted that declaring a second wife was a "false statement" and that any modification to the official Form 26 affidavit was a direct violation of Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, warranting the election to be set aside.

Counsel for the Respondent (Elected Candidate), Mr. Nitin Gangal, moved for the rejection of the petition, arguing it lacked a valid cause of action. He submitted that: - The disclosure was honest and in the spirit of transparency championed by the Supreme Court in cases like Association for Democratic Reforms . - Mr. Gavit belongs to the Bhil tribal community, where polygamy is a customary practice and the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply, thus the statement was not false. - The petition failed to plead any "material facts" showing how the election result was "materially affected" by this disclosure. - An act of transparent disclosure cannot be twisted into an allegation of corrupt practice.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Marne undertook a detailed analysis of the strict pleading standards required for an election petition under Section 83 of the RP Act, which mandates a "concise statement of material facts" and "full particulars of any corrupt practice."

The court observed that the core of the petitioner's case was self-contradictory. The judgment noted:

"Far from making such averment in the petition [that no marriage occurred], the Petitioner infact admits the fact in para-10(d) of the Election Petition that Smt. Rupali Gavit is the second wife of the Respondent... there is no material averment in the memo of Election Petition to demonstrate falsity in the declaration made by the Respondent."

The court reasoned that an act of truthful disclosure, even if it requires adding a column to a form, aligns with the constitutional goal of a voter's right to know. Citing Supreme Court precedents that mandate greater transparency from candidates, the High Court held that penalizing a candidate for providing more information would be contrary to established law.

"In my view, therefore mere disclosure of information in addition to the one required in the prescribed format would not ipso-facto render nomination to be defective... The objection actually goes against the spirit of the judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms."

Furthermore, the court found the allegations of "corrupt practice" and "undue influence" to be devoid of material facts. The petition failed to specify how the declaration interfered with the free exercise of electoral rights or how it materially affected the election's outcome, a mandatory requirement for a challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(iv).

---

Final Decision

Concluding that the election petition lacked the necessary material facts to establish a complete cause of action under any of the grounds invoked, the court allowed the respondent's application.

The court ordered:

"Application (L) No.5808/2025 filed by the Respondent is allowed and the Election Petition is accordingly rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code."

This judgment reinforces the principle that while candidates are obligated to be truthful in their affidavits, an honest and voluntary disclosure beyond the prescribed format, made in the interest of transparency, cannot be used as a weapon to invalidate an election.