Failure To Deposit Security Costs At Time Of Presentation Is An Incurable Defect Mandating Dismissal Of Election Petition: Bombay High Court

"The language of Section 117 of the R.P. Act makes the security for costs contemporaneous, if not a condition precedent, to the presentation of an Election Petition. Therefore, the requirement to deposit security for costs is not procedural but mandatory," Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 7, 2026, held that the failure to deposit security for costs at the exact time of presenting an election petition is an incurable defect mandating outright dismissal.

A single-judge bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that the mandate under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is absolute, leaving no discretion with the court but to reject such defective petitions under Section 86(1) of the Act.

The dispute arose from the Mahim Constituency elections in the 15th Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, where applicant Sadanand Sarvankar emerged as the returned candidate. The petitioner, Mahesh Baliram Sawant, secured the second-highest votes and filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices under Section 123(2) of the R.P. Act. This challenge was based on the alleged non-disclosure of four pending criminal cases in the candidate's nomination form, prompting the returned candidate to seek the petition's threshold dismissal.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure to deposit security for costs simultaneously with the presentation of an election petition warrants mandatory dismissal under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether the mere non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in a nomination form justifies rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for want of material facts.

Strict Adherence To Section 117 R.P. Act

The court strictly construed Section 117 of the R.P. Act, noting that it explicitly mandates a petitioner to deposit security for costs contemporaneously with the presentation of the petition. The bench observed that the petitioner admittedly presented the election petition on January 4, 2025, but deposited the required security two days later. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Sitaram v. Radhye Shyam Vishnav, the court ruled that presenting an election petition without the accompanying deposit constitutes an incurable defect.

"The language of Section 117 of the R.P. Act makes the security for costs contemporaneous, if not a condition precedent, to the presentation of an Election Petition."

Statutory Mandate Overrides High Court Rules

Addressing the petitioner's defence that the delay in deposit was justified under the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules due to an intervening Sunday, the bench firmly rejected this proposition. The court clarified that rules framed by the High Court merely provide for the mode and timing of cash deposits but cannot supplant statutory mandates. Justice Doctor explicitly noted that relying on such rules is "entirely misplaced" because High Court Rules cannot confer upon the registry a power not permitted under the statute.

No Discretion To Cure Defects Under Section 86(1)

The court emphasized the uncompromising nature of Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, which dictates the outright dismissal of any election petition failing to comply with Sections 81, 82, or 117. The bench ruled that an election petition presented without the security deposit cannot be deemed validly presented under law. Observing that the statutory language removes all equitable flexibility, the judge held that an unyielding application of the law was required.

"The Petitioner, having chosen to present an Election Petition which, on the face of it, was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 117 of the R.P. Act, must therefore face the consequences of presenting such a defective Petition."

Lack Of Material Pleadings Warrants Rejection

Pivoting to the substantive allegations of corrupt practices, the court evaluated the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner had alleged that the returned candidate suppressed four pending criminal cases in Form 26 of his nomination affidavit. Citing Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar, the bench found the petition entirely bereft of material particulars detailing how this alleged suppression constituted undue influence or interfered with electoral rights.

"mere non-disclosure of information in Form 26 of the nomination form for election, does not ipso facto vitiate an election unless the Election Petitioner specifically pleads and establishes... deliberate and intentional suppression"

Mere Non-Disclosure Does Not Vitiate Election

The court observed that the returned candidate had proactively disclosed as many as twenty other pending criminal cases in his nomination form, militating against any inference of deliberate concealment. Relying on Satish Mahadeorao Uke v. Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis, the bench reiterated that omissions do not automatically invalidate an election. An election petitioner is duty-bound to specifically plead and establish deliberate suppression, the materiality of the withheld information, and its precise impact on the election outcome.

The Bombay High Court allowed the interim application filed by the returned candidate and rejected the election petition at the threshold with no order as to costs. The ruling reinforces the uncompromising nature of statutory compliance in election disputes, clarifying that procedural leniency has no place when dealing with mandatory prerequisites under the Representation of the People Act.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026