Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Bombay High Court involved an election petition filed by a voter challenging the election of the returned candidate from 130-Palghar-ST Assembly Constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra State Assembly General Election. The returned candidate had contested as the official candidate of Shiv Sena. The election results were declared on 23 November 2024, and the election petition was filed seeking a declaration that the election was void under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The core allegation was that the returned candidate had falsely declared Smt. Rupali Gavit as his second spouse in Form 26, which is prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The petitioner contended that the second marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that the format of Form 26 did not permit disclosure of a second spouse, rendering the acceptance of nomination improper. The High Court issued summons on 15 January 2025, and the returned candidate appeared, filed a written statement, and then filed an interim application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the petition for want of cause of action and material facts. The applicant (original respondent) argued that the petition did not disclose any cause of action because the entire challenge was premised on a true and voluntary disclosure of a second spouse. The applicant relied on Section 33B of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which requires only such information as prescribed under the Act and Rules, and argued that there is no prohibition on making additional voluntary disclosures. The applicant further submitted that Section 83 of the Act required a concise statement of material facts, and the petition lacked an averment that no marriage ever took place between the respondent and Smt. Rupali Gavit. On the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv), the applicant contended that there was no averment that the result of the election was materially affected. The applicant also argued that Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, excluded tribal persons, and since the respondent belonged to the Bhil community, polygamy was customary and the second marriage was not void. The applicant relied on several precedents, including Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Kanimozhi v. A. Santhana Kumar. The original petitioner opposed the application, contending that the election petition, read holistically, contained necessary averments of false statement under Section 123(4) and corrupt practice. The petitioner argued that Smt. Rupali Gavit could not be considered a legally wedded wife and that the declaration was false to the knowledge of the respondent. The petitioner submitted that addition of an extra column in Form 26 violated Rule 4A, because the affidavit must be strictly in the prescribed format, and any modification rendered the acceptance of nomination improper under Section 100(1)(d)(i). The petitioner further contended that the Returning Officer ought to have rejected the nomination, and once acceptance was improper, it was not necessary to additionally prove material effect on the result. The petitioner also alleged that the false declaration of marriage with a local tribal woman was made to influence tribal voters, thereby attracting undue influence under Section 123(4). The Court heard detailed arguments on 13 June 2025 and reserved judgment. The judgment was pronounced on 23 June 2025, but the excerpt provided does not include the final analysis or operative order. Therefore, the final decision on whether the interim application was allowed or rejected is not available in the extracted text. The case highlights significant questions concerning the scope of disclosures in Form 26, the consequences of improper acceptance of nomination, and the interplay between personal law and election law for tribal candidates.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Grounds for Setting Aside Election - Corrupt Practice by False Statement under Section 123(4) read with Section 100(1)(b) of Representation of People Act, 1951 - Whether alleged false declaration of second spouse in Form 26 amounts to corrupt practice - The petitioner alleged respondent falsely declared Smt. Rupali Gavit as second spouse; respondent contended tribal custom permits polygamy and no falsehood. The court examined whether necessary averments existed to constitute corrupt practice; final holding not available in extracted text. (Paras 4, 6-7, 11-12) B) Election Law - Improper Acceptance of Nomination - Section 100(1)(d)(i) of Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Addition of column in Form 26 - Petitioner argued addition of 'Spouse No.2' column violated format prescribed by Rule 4A and should have led to rejection; respondent argued no prohibition on voluntary disclosure and no material effect on result pleaded. The court considered whether acceptance of nomination was improper; final holding not available. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 11) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint/Petition - Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sufficiency of pleadings and cause of action - Whether election petition discloses cause of action and contains concise statement of material facts under Section 83 of Representation of People Act, 1951 - Applicant contended petition lacks averments that no marriage took place and no material effect on result; petitioner contended holistic reading shows cause of action. Court considered for rejection; final holding not available. (Paras 1, 6-8, 11) D) Family Law - Applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to Tribals - Section 2 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Validity of second marriage - Whether a tribal person's second marriage is void - Respondent argued Section 2 excludes tribal persons and Bhil community custom allows polygamy; petitioner argued second marriage void. The court examined this in context of false declaration; final holding not available. (Paras 9, 11) E) Election Law - Material Facts and Result of Election - Sections 100(1)(d)(iv) and 83 of Representation of People Act, 1951 - Non-compliance with Act or Rules and effect on result - Whether petition must plead that result was materially affected - Applicant submitted no averment of material effect; petitioner contended improper acceptance itself vitiates election. Court considered; final holding not available. (Paras 8, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Election Petition discloses a cause of action and contains sufficient material facts to challenge the respondent's election under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, particularly regarding alleged false declaration of second spouse in Form 26 and addition of an extra column in violation of Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and whether such allegations require rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
