If the allegations are proved, it will materially affect the election result: Bombay High Court Allows Trial of Petition Challenging Electoral Roll in Teachers' Constituency Election

“There is no absolute bar to raising a challenge to the electoral roll in an election petition”, - Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling in Abhayankar Jagannath Motiram , where Justice Gauri Godse declined to reject an election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Court held that a challenge to an electoral roll, if based on allegations that may materially vitiate the election result, could proceed to trial under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The election petition challenged the 2024 election of the applicant (Abhayankar Jagannath Motiram) to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the Mumbai Teachers Constituency. The petitioner, Subhash Kisan More, sought to declare the election of the respondent null and void under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the 1951 Act.

According to the petitioner, the respondent had secured victory by a slim margin of 208 votes. It was alleged that 587 ineligible persons—pre-primary, primary teachers and non-teaching staff—had been illegally enrolled in the electoral roll due to the undue influence of the respondent. The petitioner claimed that if these ineligible voters had been excluded, he would have emerged as the elected candidate.

The applicant moved to reject the petition, contending that objections to the electoral roll could not be raised in an election petition if they concerned entries made before the last date of nomination, unless names were added after that date, or unless there was a breach of Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The main legal question was whether an election petition could challenge the inclusion of ineligible names in the electoral roll on grounds that such inclusion materially affected the election outcome.

Rejecting the applicant's argument that the electoral roll could not be challenged, Justice Godse held:

“There is no express bar to raising a challenge to the electoral roll in an election petition.”

She emphasized that the preparation of the electoral roll could, in suitable cases, be scrutinized in an election petition when it violated legal requirements and had a bearing on the result. Citing Indrajit Barua v. Election Commission of India and N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, she noted: “In a suitable case, a challenge to the electoral roll for not complying with the requirements of the law may be entertained subject to the rule indicated in Ponnuswami’s case.”

The Court also distinguished between general electoral roll objections and those that directly influence election results: “If any irregularities are alleged to have been committed in preparation of the electoral roll for not complying with the requirements of the law, the person affected can question it by means of an election petition, if it would have the effect of vitiating the ‘election’.”

Justice Godse noted that the petitioner had submitted a list of 587 allegedly ineligible voters and had detailed how the respondent leveraged his position and influence to secure their registration through certain school principals. Since the margin of victory was just 208 votes, the Court held: “The pleadings in the election petition would warrant a trial, as sufficient cause of action arises to challenge the election of the applicant.”

She concluded: “If the allegations are proved, it will materially affect the election result.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

This judgment reaffirms that while the electoral roll may generally be treated as final once elections are notified, courts retain the power to examine its integrity when a violation of statutory mandates is alleged to have directly influenced the outcome. The ruling opens the door for election petitions grounded in material irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls—especially in tightly contested elections.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2025