Bombay High Court Rules Post-Election RTI Refusal Not 'Corrupt Practice' Under Section 123(7) RP Act, Rejects Plea

"As the expression used is 'any assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidate's election', the non-supply of the information under the RTI Act, after the results have been declared, does not constitute assistance for furthering of prospects of the candidate's election." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling pronounced on August 12, 2026, held that the refusal or non-supply of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) after the declaration of election results does not constitute a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).

A single bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that statutory corrupt practice strictly pertains to assistance procured during the election process to further electoral prospects, and summarily rejected an election petition challenging the election of Sunil Dnyandev Kamble from the 214 Pune Cantonment Legislative Assembly Constituency.

The defeated candidate, Ramesh Anandrao Bagwe, filed an election petition seeking to declare void the 2024 election of returned candidate Sunil Dnyandev Kamble under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv), and 123(7) of the RP Act, citing lack of EVM notifications, EVM guideline violations, supplementary voter roll discrepancies, and rejection of post-poll RTI queries. In response, the returned candidate filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Sections 83, 86, and 87 of the RP Act, seeking summary rejection of the petition for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The primary question before the court was whether the non-furnishing of election-related records under the RTI Act after the declaration of results constitutes obtaining assistance for the furtherance of election prospects under Section 123(7) of the RP Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether the election petition disclosed material facts and particulars under Section 83 to sustain a challenge under Section 100 of the RP Act.

Post-Poll RTI Refusal Cannot Constitute Corrupt Practice Under Section 123(7)

Addressing the challenge under Section 123(7) of the RP Act, the bench observed that the petitioner’s RTI application was filed on November 27, 2024, whereas the election results had already been declared on November 23, 2024. The court clarified that the essence of a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) lies in procuring official assistance during the election process to enhance electoral prospects.

The bench noted that the statutory phrase "any assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidate's election" cannot be extended to post-declaration administrative actions. Justice Deshmukh pointed out that once the results are declared, the question of furthering electoral prospects no longer survives.

"The pleading of non-supply of information under RTI Act does not constitute a ground for corrupt practice."

Lack Of Pleadings Demonstrating Procured Assistance For Candidate's Benefit

The court further underlined that an election petitioner must categorically plead that the returned candidate or their election agent obtained or procured assistance from government officials for their electoral benefit. The bench held that the petition completely failed to establish how the RTI Information Officer's refusal to supply documents could be construed as assistance rendered to the returned candidate.

The bench stressed that under Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act, an election petition alleging corrupt practice must set forth full particulars, including the names of the parties involved, and the date and place of the alleged act, which were conspicuously absent in the present petition.

Section 61A RP Act Does Not Mandate Formal Notification For EVM Use

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the non-issuance of a formal notification under Section 61A of the RP Act vitiated the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Relying on the coordinate bench decision in Datta Rangnath Bahirat v. Sidharth S/O Padmakar Shirole, the bench reiterated that Section 61A requires mere "specification" by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and not a gazetted notification.

The court held that the ECI's press note dated October 15, 2024, constituted sufficient compliance with Section 61A. The bench noted that the petitioner merely repeated the wording of Section 100(1)(d) without showing how the use of EVMs materially affected the election outcome.

Vague Allegations Regarding EVM Non-Compliance Insufficient To State Cause Of Action

Scrutinizing the allegations regarding non-compliance with Rule 49B of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and ECI manuals—such as missing engraved serial numbers on EVM cabinets and failure of the Returning Officer to sign and seal machines—the court termed them bald and omnibus assertions.

The bench ruled that an election cannot be rendered void merely on generalized claims of procedural non-compliance without demonstrating that such infractions materially affected the result of the returned candidate as mandated by Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act.

Mere Addition To Supplementary Voter List Does Not Vitiate Election

On the allegation that 2,943 voters were added to the supplementary list after the nomination deadline, invoking Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the RP Act, the court found the pleadings deficient. The bench noted that the petitioner failed to append the relevant electoral rolls or demonstrate that these additions resulted in void votes being improperly received in favor of the returned candidate.

The court reiterated that an election petition must contain clear and specific pleadings showing how statutory non-compliance impacted the election outcome, rather than speculative averments.

Returned Candidate Cannot Be Made To Suffer Agonies Of Trial On Vague Pleadings

Emphasizing the threshold requirement under election jurisprudence, the court held that election petitions lacking material facts must be nipped in the bud at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

"In the absence of specific pleadings to demonstrate the corrupt practice, and the absence of specific pleadings showing that the results of the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of the vote or non-compliance of Constitution of India, the statutory provisions or the rules framed thereunder, the returned candidate cannot be made to suffer the agonies of trial."

The High Court allowed the interim application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and rejected the election petition at the threshold for lack of cause of action. The ruling reinforces that post-election RTI denials cannot be conflated with corrupt practices under election law and protects returned candidates from facing prolonged election trials on unsubstantiated pleadings.

Date of Decision: August 12, 2026