Vague Allegations Cannot Invalidate a Democratic Mandate: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition for Lack of Material Facts

“Election Petition Must Stand or Fall on the Strength of Its Pleadings, Not on Hopes of Future Evidence”:  In a significant judgment Bombay High Court decisively dismissed Election Petition filed by Anil Subhash Sawant challenging the election of Samadhan Mahadeo Autade, the returned candidate from Pandharpur Assembly Constituency (No. 252). Justice Milind N. Jadhav ruled that the petition failed to disclose any cause of action due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), particularly Sections 81, 82, 83, and 100.

Laying down a firm precedent, the Court held: “Election petitions are not inquisitorial investigations; they must strictly conform to statutory pleadings. Vague and generalized allegations, devoid of material facts, cannot invalidate the democratic will expressed through elections.”

The Court emphasized that a statutory right to challenge elections demands adherence to statutory rigour and cannot be pursued on speculative claims.

Background: A Defeated Candidate Challenges Election Results Primarily on EVM Usage

The petitioner, Anil Sawant, who secured only 10,217 votes against the returned candidate’s 1,25,163 votes in the November 2024 Assembly Elections, filed the petition challenging the election on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularities in EVM-VVPAT usage, non-supply of election records (Form 17C), discrepancies in electoral rolls, and discriminatory distribution of voter slips.

However, the relief sought was limited to setting aside the election of the returned candidate without seeking a further declaration in his own favour. Furthermore, the petitioner impleaded all 23 contesting candidates, which the Court found to be contrary to the scheme of the RP Act.

“Improper Joinder of Parties and No Further Declaration Sought Violates Section 82”: Court Flags Fundamental Procedural Error

Justice Jadhav ruled that the petitioner’s failure to comply with Section 82 of the RP Act was a fatal defect. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982), the Court observed:

“Where no declaration is sought in favour of oneself or another, only the returned candidate must be made party; impleading all contesting candidates constitutes a statutory violation.”

The Court held that improper joinder of parties alone justified dismissal of the petition.

“Pleadings Are Skeletons of Justice, Not Empty Shells”: Court Denounces Absence of Material Facts

A central ground for dismissal was the complete absence of material facts, which are mandatory under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. The Court underscored:

“It is settled law that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts. Vague, omnibus assertions without specifics of dates, names, or events cannot be cured through evidence at trial.”

The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s latest pronouncements in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407) and Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 509), reiterating: “Omission of even a singular material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action, rendering the election petition liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”

EVM Allegations Dismissed as “Speculative and Conclusively Settled by Supreme Court”

On the specific challenge to the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), the Court held the allegations were legally untenable. Referring to Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 228), Justice Jadhav observed: “The Supreme Court has conclusively upheld the sanctity of EVMs and VVPAT. General allegations doubting EVM integrity, without specific facts demonstrating material impact, are mere conjecture and must be dismissed summarily.”

Further, the Court noted that the Election Commission had issued comprehensive public notices and followed all due processes, rendering allegations of irregularity meritless.

“Corrupt Practice Allegations Must Be Precise, Not Fictional Narratives”: Court Finds No Valid Ground Under Section 100(1)(d)

The Court scrutinized the petitioner’s invocation of Sections 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) RP Act, which allow elections to be set aside on grounds of improper acceptance of votes or non-compliance with election laws. However, the Court remarked:

“The petition fails to allege any direct role of the returned candidate in any alleged irregularity. No dates, no names, no specific incidents are pleaded — the essential sine qua non for a valid election petition is absent.”

It further noted the petitioner’s own admissions during arguments that material facts were absent but could be proved during trial — an approach the Court firmly rejected, stating: “Election petitions stand or fall on the strength of their pleadings, not on post-facto fishing expeditions at trial.”

Election Petition Summarily Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Justice Jadhav concluded: “In the absence of any precise and necessary pleadings and having regard to binding precedents, the election petition is not maintainable even at the threshold and is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”

Accordingly, the Election Petition was dismissed without costs.

Bombay High Court Reinforces Statutory Discipline in Election Disputes

This ruling reinforces the consistent judicial approach that election petitions are not vehicles for speculative grievances but must strictly adhere to the statutory framework of the RP Act. By upholding the legislative intent of minimizing frivolous challenges to democratic processes, the Court sent a clear message that judicial time will not be expended on petitions lacking foundational facts.

Justice Jadhav’s observation encapsulates the judgment’s ethos: “The right to challenge an election is a statutory right, and with such right comes an equally strict obligation — to plead, to prove, and to proceed within the confines of law.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2025