Safiya Malik

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Single Bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker has held that the Election Petition challenging the election of Respondent No.3 to the 18th Lok Sabha from Dhule Parliamentary Constituency is maintainable and does not warrant dismissal at the threshold. The Court directed that the Election Petition, which alleged irregularities including votes cast in the name of deceased persons and multiple voting by individuals, must proceed to trial.

The Court rejected the application filed by Respondent No.3 seeking dismissal of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Sections 81, 82, and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It ruled that the allegations made, supported by documentary evidence, raised triable issues and the objections raised by the respondent did not justify summary rejection of the petition. The Court also held that the Aurangabad Bench had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, despite the absence of specific mention in the procedural rules, by virtue of the Presidential Order of 1996.

Also Read: Right To Do Business Includes Right To Shut Down | Supreme Court Upholds Article 19(1)(g) Protection

General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha were announced on 16.03.2024, and voting for the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency took place on 20.05.2024. Respondent No.3 was declared elected on 04.06.2024 with 5,83,866 votes, while the petitioner received 5,80,035 votes, resulting in a margin of 3831 votes. The Election Petition primarily focused on the Malegaon Central Assembly Constituency, where Respondent No.3 reportedly secured 1,98,869 votes, and the petitioner only 4542.

The petitioner alleged that the names of numerous deceased persons remained on the electoral rolls in Malegaon Central, and that votes were cast in their names in favor of Respondent No.3. The petitioner further claimed that certain individuals cast multiple votes across different polling booths. An application was made under the Right to Information Act for relevant data from Malegaon Municipal Corporation, and it was revealed that 17,767 deaths were recorded in the region from 2016 to 2024.

A comparative analysis of this data with the electoral roll led the petitioner to assert that at least 4,378 deceased individuals remained on the voters' list and that votes had been cast in their names. Additionally, a chart appended to the petition claimed to show 3,329 instances of individuals voting in multiple locations within the same constituency.

The petitioner filed applications seeking CCTV footage, the voters’ register under Rule 17-A, and the calculation of votes per booth. These were denied by the Election Commission, citing restrictions in its handbook. Respondent No.3, through an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, sought dismissal of the petition, asserting that the claims were speculative, lacked material facts, and failed to meet the requirements under Sections 81, 82, and 83 of the Representation of the People Act.

Respondent No.3 argued that the petition lacked an affidavit in Form 25, which is mandatory for allegations involving corrupt practices. It was further contended that there was no prima facie proof of votes cast in the names of dead persons or evidence substantiating the allegations of impersonation or multiple voting.

In reply, the petitioner asserted that the petition does not allege corrupt practices and therefore does not require an affidavit in Form 25. The petitioner stated that all allegations were based on official records, including registers obtained from municipal authorities and comparative analysis of electoral rolls. It was stated that the detailed chart appended to the petition formed the basis for the numbers quoted.

The Election Commission, in a separate application, acknowledged that votes from four EVM machines—amounting to 2028 votes—were not counted due to non-deletion of mock poll data. The petitioner contended that this discrepancy exceeded the victory margin and further supported the need for a full trial.

Respondent No.3 raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, asserting that under the High Court’s Rules for the Presentation of Election Petitions, Dhule district was not included under the Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner responded that the Presidential Notification dated 22.01.1996 included Dhule in the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench and that the presentation of the petition was proper. The Court noted that the Hon’ble Chief Justice had assigned the matter to the Aurangabad Bench.

The Court stated: "Considering the pleading of the Election Petitioner it is to be noted that there is no prima-facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons." However, it continued that the petitioner had requested the Register of Voters under Form 17-A and 17-C, and CCTV footage, which were not provided.

On the issue of multiple voting, the Court recorded, "The Election Petitioner has submitted that, on evidence being produced before this court, it will be a matter of trial and it could be tested as to whether the petitioner could prove his case or not as regards the illegal casting of votes in large numbers."

Addressing the claim regarding non-counted EVM votes, the Court noted, "That in the present case as there was the non-deletion of the mock data from the control unit therefore, the counting from the four EVM machines was not done / required. The details of those four machines are as under... Total 2028." It stated, "The Election Commission has stated that votes of these machines are not included and the same does not materially affect the election."

On jurisdiction, the Court observed, "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."

Regarding the procedural objection, the Court noted, "Rules framed by the High Court 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."

As to the verification of pleadings, the Court stated, "It is a matter of record that affidavit and verification is filed along with the election petition disclosing the source of information. Even in the present application, it is stated in paragraph no.15 that names of supporters are furnished as the persons who supplied the information to the petitioner."

The Court summarized that "The Election Petition has pleaded with material facts and the details of such voters whose names are repeated are provided in the chart annexed to the petition. The petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold."

In an election petition, the pleadings must be clear, specific, and unambiguous. If the allegations do not set out the grounds as contemplated under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act and fail to comply with the requirements of Sections 81 and 83, the petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Even the omission of a single material fact resulting in an incomplete cause of action, or failure to present a concise statement of the material facts relied upon to establish the cause of action, would attract rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act.

Also Read: Treaty Provisions Cannot Override National Law Without Legislation | Bombay High Court Upholds Customs Authority’s Jurisdiction, Dismisses Petitions in Tin Ingots Case

The Application in Election Petition No.35 of 2024 (Exhibit-16), which sought the dismissal of the election petition, is allowed by the Court.

Consequently, Election Petition No.2 of 2024, which challenged the election outcome for the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency, stands dismissed.

Furthermore, it is directed that all other pending applications also stand dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni and Mr. Umesh G. Mitkari, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. V. D. Salunke and Mr. A. V. Deshmukh for Respondent No.3; Mr. Alok Sharma for Election Commission of India

Case Title: Smt. Shobha Dinesh Bacchav vs. Dr. Shri Subhash Ramrao Bhamre and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:14929

Case Number: Election Petition No.2 of 2024 with Application No.35 of 2024

Bench: Justice Arun R. Pedneker

[Read/Download order]