The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed an Election Petition questioning the election of Anil Yeshwant Desai, alleging defects in the nomination papers of multiple candidates, including the returned candidate. The petitioner, who secured 1,444 votes against Desai's 3,95,138 votes in the 2024 elections, failed to provide sufficient material facts showing how the defects materially affected the election results. The court held that non-compliance with procedural rules alone does not void an election without demonstrating material impact. The petition was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for non-disclosure of cause of action and Section 86 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951 for non-compliance with Sections 81 and 82.

1. Introduction and Parties Involved:

• Petitioner: Mahendra Tulshiram Bhingardive of the Right to Recall Party.
• Respondent: Anil Yeshwant Desai (Returned Candidate), along with other contesting candidates.
• Application: Filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC and Sections 81 and 82 of the RP Act, 1951, challenging the validity of the nomination papers.

2. Petitioner's Allegations:

• Alleged defects in nomination papers of the returned candidate and others, such as incomplete and unsigned Affidavit (Form 26), multiple uploads of the same affidavit, and wrong information regarding property ownership.

3. Legal Basis for Dismissal Sought:

• Application sought dismissal of the petition for non-disclosure of a cause of action, arguing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how these alleged defects materially affected the election results.

4. Petitioner's Defects Claimed in Nomination:

• Missing signature on the reverse of the stamp paper.
• Incomplete information in Affidavit Form 26 regarding property values and dependents.

5. Court’s Observations:

• The court noted that under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the RP Act, it is necessary to prove that improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the election result.
• The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged defects were of a substantial nature.

6. Legal Framework:

• Reference to Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC: Requires disclosure of a cause of action.
• Sections 81 and 82 of the RP Act, 1951: Relating to the grounds and parties required for an election petition.
• Section 86 RP Act: Mandates dismissal for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

7. Court’s Decision on Defects:

• The alleged defects, such as unsigned pages and missing words in Affidavit Form 26, were deemed non-substantial.
• The petition lacked necessary pleadings showing how these defects could materially affect the election.

8. Statutory and Judicial Precedents:

• The court cited Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, emphasizing that mere procedural defects without showing material impact do not invalidate an election.

9. Final Verdict:

• The Election Petition was dismissed for failing to disclose a cause of action and for non-compliance with the provisions of the RP Act.
• Interim applications seeking amendments to the petition were also dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court emphasized that procedural defects in the nomination process, without demonstrating a material impact on the election result, cannot be grounds for invalidating an election. An election petition must clearly plead how any alleged defect has materially affected the election, in line with Section 100(1)(d) of the RP Act.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Order VII Rule 11(a), CPC – Rejection of a plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951:
  • Section 81 – Presentation of election petitions.
  • Section 82 – Parties to the petition.
  • Section 100(1)(d) – Grounds for declaring an election void.
  • Section 86 – Dismissal for non-compliance with Sections 81 or 82.