A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA

“An election petition not disclosing full particulars of corrupt practice under Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act cannot be allowed to proceed; clever drafting without substance cannot sustain a challenge to a democratically elected candidate.” - Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has rejected an election petition challenging the victory of Shiv Sena MLA Mahendra Sadashiv Thorve from the 189-Karjat Legislative Assembly Constituency, ruling that the petition failed to disclose a cause of action and lacked the material facts and particulars required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne emphasized that “clever drafting has created only an illusion of cause of action, when in fact there is none.” The Court allowed Application filed by the returned candidate under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, and simultaneously rejected the petitioner’s application seeking amendment of the original pleadings.

Allegations of Bribery Based on Saree Distribution Held Vague and Unsubstantiated

The petitioner had alleged that sarees bearing the photograph of the returned candidate and the Shiv Sena symbol were distributed to female voters in exchange for promises to vote. However, the Court ruled that the petition "is completely silent about the person who distributed the sarees." Justice Marne held that there was a total failure to plead whether the alleged act was done by the returned candidate himself, his election agent, or someone acting with his consent.

Referring to Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act, the Court stated, “disclosure of the name of the person who is alleged to have committed the corrupt practice becomes vital. Qua the allegation of distribution of sarees, there is no disclosure of name of the person who has allegedly distributed the sarees.” The judgment reiterated that under Section 100(1)(b), different requirements of proof arise depending on who committed the corrupt practice. The Court observed, “Election of a democratically elected candidate cannot be set aside by undertaking an inferential process.”

“No Link Between Threat and Electoral Rights” – Court Rejects Undue Influence Allegation

Another ground in the petition was that the returned candidate had allegedly threatened a 70-year-old party worker of the petitioner, Shri Manohar Patil, during the campaign. The Court, however, noted that there was no pleading to show that Shri Patil was an elector, nor that the threat interfered with his right to vote.

Justice Marne held, “There is no averment that Shri. Manohar Patil did not cast his vote in the election or voted against the Election Petitioner. In absence of such an averment, the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123(2) and 100(1)(b) cannot be said to be made out.”

The judgment further observed inconsistencies between the election petition and the complaint lodged with the police. “Both in the written complaint and in the N.C. there is no allegation that Respondent No.1 told Shri. Manohar Patil to work for Shiv Sena Party and not for the Petitioner or that threats were given after Shri. Patil refused to do so,” the Court recorded.

Dummy Candidates and SMS Campaign: Insufficient Facts Pleaded

A key allegation was that the returned candidate had fielded two individuals with similar names—Respondents No. 2 and 3—to confuse voters. The petitioner alleged that these candidates were induced to contest by gratification, and that SMS messages were circulated urging voters to support them, causing a split in the petitioner’s vote bank.

The Court dismissed this as a speculative and inferential allegation. It held that the petition contained “no pleadings naming the persons who allegedly induced or offered gratification to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3,” and that “the manner in which the gratification was paid and the date when the same was paid is also not pleaded.”

On the issue of SMSs sent from a handle which had also issued Diwali greetings on behalf of the returned candidate, the Court stated: “There is total absence of material to infer that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were fielded by Respondent No.1 by offering any inducement or gratification.”

Failure to Properly Plead Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case

The petitioner had accused the returned candidate of concealing a pending criminal case by mentioning the incorrect year of the case in the nomination form. The Court, however, noted that the case number was accurate and only the year had been erroneously typed as 2012 instead of 2013. The Court found this to be a typographical error rather than a deliberate concealment.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang, the Court emphasized, “Non-disclosure of every fact does not constitute defect of substantial nature warranting setting aside of election.”

Non-Counting of Votes at One Polling Booth Not Material

The petitioner alleged that votes from Polling Station No. 217 were not counted, affecting the result. However, the Court noted that the returned candidate won by a margin of 5,694 votes, and the alleged number of uncounted votes was only 1,014. The Court concluded, “There is no pleading as to how election of Respondent No.1 is materially affected by non-counting of any particular vote.”

Amendment Application Rejected: “An Attempt to Cure Fatal Defects”

In a bid to salvage the petition, the petitioner filed Application (L) No. 25974 of 2025 seeking amplification of the pleadings. However, the Court rejected this move, holding that such amplification cannot cure the absence of core material facts.

Justice Marne observed, “The Election Petition deserves to be rejected for total failure to plead the material facts.” The Court emphasized that while Section 86(5) of the RP Act allows for amplification of particulars, it cannot be used to introduce new allegations of corrupt practice not originally pleaded.

The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s ruling in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, stating, “What can be amended or amplified are only particulars of an already pleaded corrupt practice—not fresh instances.”

No Legal Cause of Action for Trial

Concluding the matter, the Court ruled that the petition must be rejected at the threshold stage. “The five alleged grounds for setting aside election of Respondent No.1 fall short of requirement of disclosure of material facts. In absence of disclosure of material facts, the Election Petition cannot be permitted to be taken for trial,” the Court declared.

The final order reads:

“(i) Application No.11 of 2025 is allowed.
(ii) Application (L.) No. 25974 of 2025 for amendment of the Election Petition is rejected.
(iii) Consequently, Election Petition No. 23 of 2025 is rejected.
(iv) Application (L.) No. 26165 of 2025 is disposed of.”

Judgment Reaffirms Principle: Strict Compliance Mandatory in Election Petitions

The ruling reiterates that election petitions are special statutory proceedings that demand strict compliance with procedural and substantive requirements. The Court observed, “It is well settled that Election Petition is a statutory remedy and not a remedy in equity or a remedy in common law. Strict compliance with the provisions of the RP Act is mandatory.”

The verdict sends a clear signal that vague allegations, inferential claims, and procedural shortcuts will not be entertained in election disputes. As Justice Marne concluded, “Even if some amendments are treated as amplification, the pleadings would still fall short of the requirements under Section 83 read with Section 100.”

The judgment stands as a crucial precedent in election law jurisprudence, reinforcing that the foundation of an election petition must be laid with precision, factually and legally, at the outset.