Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to an election petition filed by Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar, an independent candidate, challenging the election of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan, the returned candidate from 85-Bhokar Legislative Assembly Constituency in the Maharashtra State Assembly elections held in 2009. The petitioner alleged that the election was vitiated by corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The two primary grounds of challenge were the alleged vulnerability and tampering of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the incurring of election expenditure beyond the permissible limit through 'paid news'. The petitioner claimed that Respondent No.1 secured 79.65% of the votes while he himself polled only 8.79%, which he considered improbable. He provided booth-wise voting percentages and contended that EVMs were not tamper-proof and could be manipulated through programming or remote interference. The Returning Officer was alleged to have not followed mandatory procedures, such as conducting mock polls, and the EVMs were not kept in proper safe custody. Regarding election expenses, the petitioner argued that Respondent No.1 received unprecedented media coverage with 50 full newspaper pages devoted to him, which he characterized as paid advertisements not marked as such, resulting in expenditure exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement and an application (Exhibit 17) raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He contended that the petition did not satisfy the requirements of Sections 81(3) and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as it lacked a concise statement of material facts and did not disclose a cause of action. He sought summary dismissal. The court directed the parties to address this preliminary objection. Arguments were heard on October 3, 4, and 8, 2012, after which the court reserved judgment. The final decision is not contained in the provided text, and the judgment text ends abruptly during the narration of facts. Consequently, the court's analysis, ratio decidendi, and operative order are not available for extraction.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - EVM Tampering - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 123, 100 - Petitioner alleged that the returned candidate secured an improbably high vote share due to tampering of Electronic Voting Machines; various theoretical vulnerabilities were cited, and non-compliance with procedural safeguards by the Returning Officer were alleged - Court considered these allegations in the context of preliminary objection on maintainability (Paras 7-20). B) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Excess Election Expenditure - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 123, 77 - Petitioner alleged that the returned candidate incurred excess election expenditure through unprecedented media coverage treated as 'paid news', exceeding the prescribed limit - Court considered whether these allegations constitute a cause of action (mentioned in Paras 22-23). C) Election Law - Maintainability of Election Petition - Pleading of Material Facts - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 81(3), 83 - Respondent No.1 raised preliminary objection that the petition lacked material facts and failed to comply with mandatory provisions, thus meriting summary dismissal - Court heard arguments and reserved judgment (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition is maintainable in light of the preliminary objection regarding non-compliance with Sections 81(3) and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether it discloses a cause of action for corrupt practices.
