Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary on 3 February 2026 upheld the election of the returned candidate from the 38, Sindri Assembly Constituency in the October–November 2024 Jharkhand Assembly elections, dismissing an election petition challenging the result. The petition alleged that discrepancies during the election campaign amounted to corrupt practices and materially affected the outcome. Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that not every discrepancy in an election campaign can, by itself, be treated as a corrupt practice, unless it is shown to have been reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of other contesting candidates by misleading voters.

The election petitioner instituted proceedings challenging the validity of the election of the returned candidate from the Sindri Assembly Constituency to the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. The petition was filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with Section 100(1)(a), (b), (d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was alleged that the security deposit of ₹10,000 was not made in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as it was deposited with the Nazir instead of the Returning Officer or in the Government treasury. The petitioner further contended that nomination affidavits lacked prescribed stamps, that only two affidavits were original while two were photocopies, that omission of the word “Liberation” in campaign material misled voters, and that publication regarding a criminal case was misleading.

Also Read: Statutory Authorities Can Intervene When Co-Operative Housing Society Delays Membership Decisions; Supreme Court

The respondent sought rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 86(1) of the Act, contending absence of material facts, non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 and 83, lack of proper affidavit under Rule 94A, and false averments regarding conviction. A certified copy of judgment in U.R. Case No.1177 of 2014 was produced during hearing.

The Court recorded that “Grounds under which an election petition may be dismissed has been summed up in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar” and extracted the principles regarding material facts and cause of action. It noted that “Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, 1951 mandates that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies.” It further recorded that “Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad.”

On the statutory scheme, the Court observed, “From the above provision, it is apparent that for declaring election void, grounds must conform with requirements of Section 100 of the Act, 1951.” It stated, “In order to make out a case under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951, it was necessary for petitioner to specifically plead that election was materially affected by non-compliance.”

While examining the pleadings, the Court recorded, “It is trite law that while considering a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, defence is not to be considered, and it is only to be seen whether cause of action is made out on the averments made in the plaint.”

Regarding the deposit of security, it observed, “This is something very peripheral and cannot be a ground to declare the election to be invalid.” On the affidavit stamps, it recorded, “The second plea… is equally flippant.”

With respect to omission of the word “liberation,” the Court observed, “This omission cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to mislead the voters to the detriment of the election petitioner.” It further stated, “It is difficult to comprehend how this omission did materially affect the election result.”

On the allegation of conviction, the Court recorded, “The statement as given in para 26 of the election petition, ex-facie is false.” It added, “Such a false statement is itself a ground for dismissal of the election petition.”

Ultimately, the Court observed, “The pleadings raised in the instant election petition, does not disclose a cause of action for the relief claimed so as to lead the election petition to any meaningful result.”

Also Read: “Section 125 Cr.PC Was Conceived To Ameliorate The Agony, Anguish, Financial Suffering Of A Woman”: Jharkhand High Court Flags Delay In Disposal Of Maintenance Case, Declines Enhancement

The Court directed that “Interlocutory application for rejection of plaint (I.A. No. 12722 of 2025) is allowed and the plaint of the election petition is rejected. Election petition stands dismissed with cost. Cost assessed to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand).”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate; Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samarendra, Advocate; Mr. Parth Sarthi, Advocate; Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate

Case Title: Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato v. Chandradeo Mahato
Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:2731
Case Number: E.P. No. 01 of 2025 with I.A. No. 12722 of 2025
Bench: Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary