-
by Admin
24 March 2026 8:31 AM
“A Bald Averment That The Result Was ‘Materially Affected’ Is Not Enough To Sustain An Election Petition”, In an important ruling on the strict pleading requirements for election disputes, the Bombay High Court held that an election petition must clearly disclose material facts constituting a complete cause of action, and mere allegations without foundational facts are insufficient to challenge an electoral outcome.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of the Chandivali Assembly Constituency MLA, holding that the pleadings failed to disclose the material facts required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Court observed:
“A bald averment that the election result was materially affected would not suffice. The petition must indicate how the alleged violation materially affected the electoral outcome.”
Background of the Case
The election petition was filed by Md. Arif Lalan Khan, who contested the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election from the Chandivali constituency.
The returned candidate Dilip Bhausaheb Lande secured 1,24,641 votes, defeating Khan, who received 1,04,016 votes, by a margin of 20,625 votes.
Khan approached the High Court seeking to set aside Lande’s election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging corrupt practices and statutory violations. During the hearing, Khan also initially sought a declaration that he himself be declared the winning candidate under Section 101, but later gave up that relief.
Lande, the returned candidate, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the election petition on the ground that it did not disclose material facts constituting a cause of action.
Allegations Raised In The Election Petition
The petitioner relied on three principal allegations to challenge the election.
First, it was alleged that Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who was also a star campaigner for Shiv Sena, visited the constituency on the polling day at 3:08 PM, during the prohibited 48-hour silent period under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act. According to the petitioner, the visit turned into a road show near polling stations, which allegedly influenced voters.
Second, the petitioner alleged that the returned candidate had filed a misleading Form 26 affidavit by including details of several civil cases along with criminal cases, thereby creating an incorrect impression regarding the candidate’s legal background.
Third, the petitioner expressed an apprehension of tampering with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and had applied for verification of 20 EVM units, depositing approximately ₹9.44 lakh as required under Supreme Court guidelines.
High Court On Requirement Of “Material Facts” In Election Petitions
The Court emphasised that election petitions are purely statutory proceedings, and strict compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act is mandatory.
Under the statute, an election petition must contain:
• a concise statement of material facts, and
• full particulars of any alleged corrupt practice.
The Court explained that material facts are the foundational facts that constitute the cause of action, whereas particulars are merely supporting details.
Justice Sundaresan noted:
“Material facts constitute the entire bundle of facts necessary to establish a cause of action. Omission of even a single material fact results in an incomplete cause of action.”
Campaign During Silent Period Did Not Constitute “Undue Influence”
One of the central allegations was that Eknath Shinde’s visit during the prohibited campaign period influenced voters.
The Court observed that even if the alleged road show violated Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, such violation does not automatically amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123.
For a corrupt practice to be established under Section 123(2), the petitioner must show “undue influence”, meaning an interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.
The Court clarified that mere campaigning or influencing voters does not amount to undue influence unless it involves coercion, inducement, or interference with the voter’s free will.
Justice Sundaresan explained:
“Influence in the electoral context is not the same as ‘undue influence’. There must be a pleading showing interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.”
Since the petition did not plead any threat, coercion, inducement, or disruption of voter free will, the allegation did not satisfy the statutory requirement of corrupt practice.
Mere Violation Of Election Law Not Enough To Void Election
The Court further held that even if the alleged road show violated Section 126 of the Act, the petitioner was required to plead how that violation materially affected the election result under Section 100(1)(d)(iv).
The petition merely contained a general assertion that the petitioner would have won but for the violation, without explaining how the campaign affected voting patterns or the outcome.
The Court held that such bald assertions cannot sustain an election petition.
Disclosure Of Civil Cases In Form 26 Not A Corrupt Practice
The petitioner also argued that the returned candidate’s Form 26 affidavit was misleading because it disclosed civil cases along with criminal cases.
The High Court rejected this argument, observing that the law prescribes minimum disclosure requirements, and there is no prohibition on voluntarily disclosing additional information.
The Court held that the petition did not explain how such disclosure misled voters or materially affected the election result.
EVM Tampering Allegation Found Vague
Regarding the allegation of EVM tampering, the Court noted that the petitioner had merely expressed an apprehension and sought verification of certain machines.
The Court held that merely applying for EVM verification under Supreme Court guidelines does not amount to a pleading of material facts sufficient to challenge an election result.
Justice Sundaresan observed that the petition failed to link the alleged tampering to any specific conduct affecting the election outcome.
Election Petition Rejected At Threshold
After analysing all three allegations, the High Court concluded that the election petition failed to disclose a complete cause of action as required by law.
The Court emphasised that democratic election outcomes should not be unsettled lightly, particularly when the pleadings do not satisfy the strict statutory requirements governing election disputes.
Consequently, the Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the election petition at the threshold.
However, the Court clarified that its decision does not affect ongoing verification of the EVMs or any criminal proceedings that may arise from the alleged violation of Section 126.
The ruling reiterates that election petitions must strictly comply with the pleading requirements of the Representation of the People Act.
The Bombay High Court emphasised that mere allegations or suspicions cannot form the basis for invalidating a democratic election, and courts will reject election petitions that fail to disclose clear material facts showing how the alleged violations affected the election result.
Date of Decision: 7 March 2026
