Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sou. Sonali w/o. Mangesh Lode, filed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No.3, Bharti Purushottam Mahalle, for the election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jalgaon. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 submitted a false affidavit dated 6.9.2018 stating that she married Purushottam Mahalle and changed her name from Bharti Bhaskarrao Deshmukh to Bharti Purushottam Mahalle. The petitioner contended that the marriage was void because Purushottam Mahalle had a living spouse at the time of the alleged marriage, thus disqualifying respondent No.3 under Rule 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and UpaSarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The petitioner argued that the false affidavit constituted a defect of substantial character, requiring the Returning Officer to reject the nomination under Rule 9(2). The respondents opposed, arguing that the defect was not substantial. The court interpreted Rule 9(2) to mean that if a defect is of substantial character, the Presiding Officer must reject the nomination. The court found that a false affidavit regarding marital status is a defect of substantial character. The court set aside the Returning Officer's decision to accept the nomination and directed him to decide the objection afresh in accordance with law, considering the false affidavit as a substantial defect. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Paper - Defect of Substantial Character - Rule 9(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and UpaSarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 - The petitioner objected to the nomination of respondent No.3 on the ground that she filed a false affidavit claiming marriage to Purushottam Mahalle, who had a living spouse, making the marriage void. The court held that a false affidavit regarding a material fact like marital status constitutes a defect of substantial character, and the Returning Officer must reject the nomination paper under Rule 9(2). The court directed the Returning Officer to decide the objection afresh in light of this interpretation. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the filing of a false affidavit regarding marital status constitutes a defect of substantial character under Rule 9(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and UpaSarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, warranting rejection of the nomination paper.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the decision of the Returning Officer accepting the nomination of respondent No.3, and directed the Returning Officer to decide the objection afresh in accordance with law, considering the false affidavit as a defect of substantial character. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Rule 9(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and UpaSarpanch) Election Rules
- 1964
- Defect of substantial character
- False affidavit
- Disqualification for election
