Bombay High Court: In the present election petition, the victory of Shobha Dinesh Bacchav (‘respondent 3’) in the General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha and the voting to the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency was challenged by Subhash Ramrao Bhamre (‘election petitioner’) on the ground of illegal casting of votes. A Single Judge Bench of Arun R. Pedneker, J., dismissed the election petition stating that the allegations were not supported with any material evidence and therefore the Court could not conclude that just because the voter list contained the names of dead people, the votes were actually cast in their name.
Background:
On 4-6-2024, respondent 3 was declared elected to the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency in the General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha. The election petitioner secured the second highest votes with a difference of 3831 votes. The Election Petition contended that names of large number of dead persons were included in the electoral roll and votes were cast in the name of those dead persons in favour of respondent 3. It was also contended that there were multiple votes cast in the name of same persons in different booths in the said Constituency with their names being reflected at multiple places of the same assembly constituency.
The election petitioner sought details of the register of death maintained under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act in Malegaon Central Assembly to counter check the entries with the final list of voters which revealed that the names of 4378 dead people were included therein even though their deaths were duly recorded in the said register. He further alleged that there was multiple voting by 3329 people which affected the sanctity and purity of the election and that votes from about 6 Electric Voting Machines have not been counted. He also sought the nomination papers, CCTV footage, the register of voters maintained under Rule 17-A on every booth and the details of the calculation of votes on all those booths. He was however not supplied with the register and the calculation of votes.
Respondent 3 appeared before the Court with an application for rejection of the Election Petition on the ground that the election petitioner alleged corrupt practice in the election but did not file an affidavit in form no. 25 along with the said petition leading to the non-compliance of a mandatory requirement under Section 83(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘the Act’). She also stated that the petitioner challenged the election on issues which did not fall within the purview of Sections 100 and 101 of the Act and that the petition did not disclose the complete cause of action.
The allegations in the original election petition about many Burkha clad women voting in favour of respondent 3, votes polled in the name of dead persons to increase her vote share and multiple voting by same persons in her favour were refuted by respondent 3 and while calling it baseless, she demanded the petition to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Respondent 3 further contended that as per the “Rules Framed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in regard to Election Petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951” (‘High Court Presentation of Election Petition Rules’), even though Dhule district was attached to the Aurangabad Bench of this High Court, Rule 4 of the High Court Rules was not amended to include Dhule district within the jurisdictional limits of the Aurangabad Bench for the purpose of entertaining Election Petitions. To this, the election petitioner submitted that the objection based upon Rule 4 of the High Court Rules was not sustainable as the said Rules would not override Sections 80, 80-A and 81 of the Act, which provided that the election petition must be filed and tried by the High Court.
Analysis:
The Court stated that the primary legal issue that arose was whether the election petition was correctly presented before the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court and, if not, whether the petition became liable for dismissal?
The Court referred to Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, 2001 SCC Online SC 205, wherein it was observed that the rules formulated by the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution were procedural in nature and not substantive law in themselves and the rules should apply so far as it was not inconsistent with the Act. Thus in the present case, the Court held that the Election Petition arising from the district of Dhule after the Presidential Order of 1996 under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 lied before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court notwithstanding that there was no corresponding amendment made in the High Court Rules for presentation of election petition as the High Court rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution were only procedural in nature and could not override the substantial law i.e., the States Reorganisation Act. The Court opined that the Election Petition was rightly presented before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The Court after considering the objections as to illegal casting of vote, held that there was no prima facie material to show that the votes were cast in the name of dead people. The Court said that without the data being made available by the Election Commission, further case of the petitioner could neither be substantiated nor refuted and on the mere speculation, the Court could not presume that votes were actually cast in the name of dead people and thus could not possibly enter an inquiry into the same. The Court found that the ground raised in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act was not substantiated by material particulars.
The Court also dismissed the allegation that respondent 3 failed to disclose a criminal case in her election affidavit and found that there was no evidence to support that the alleged suppression influenced voters or constituted corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Act.
The Court concluded that the pleadings in the petition were not precise, specific and unambiguous and that the allegations put forth did not set out grounds as per Section 100 of the Act. Further, the requirements of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act were not met, therefore, making the Election Petition liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and thus, ordered the dismissal of the present petition.
[Shobha Dinesh Bacchav v. Subhash Ramrao Bhamre, Application in Election Petition No. 35 of 2024, decided on 13-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: V.D. Salunke along with A.V. Deshmukh.
For the Original Petitioner/Non-applicant 1: Mukul Kulkarni along with Umesh G. Mitkari.
For the Non-applicants 2 and 3:Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Election Commission
Advocate for Respondent 10: Mohit S. Shah
Buy Constitution of India HERE
