Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an election petition published in the Gazette filed by Kankar Munjare, a Bahujan Samaj Party candidate, challenging the election of Bharti Pardhi, representing Bharatiya Janata Party, as the Member of Parliament from Balaghat in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections, the Single Judge Bench of Avanindra Kumar Singh On, J., dismissed the petition, holding that Kankar Munjare failed to show any cause of action for which the petition should be put to trial.
Background
After the polls, the presiding officers furnished a copy of the record of votes from Polling Station 88, Madhyamik Shala, Jayama, wherein the total number of Polled votes was shown as 372. However, while counting, the EVM machine displayed a total of 428 votes. The said discrepancy was pointed out by the representative of the Indian National Congress Party, against which the Returning Officer informed that the total votes were 428.
Kankar Munjare, through his representatives/counting agents, submitted complaints apprising the authorities concerned about the corrupt practice of vote mismatch allegedly committed by Bharti Pardhi or someone else at her instance. They further wrote letters to the authorities stating that the EVMs were tampered with because even after counting, they were 99 per cent charged.
Kankar Mujare also alleged foul play by the authorities, such as the Collector and Superintendent of Police. Thus, he filed the present election petition under Section 80, 80-A, 81, and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), seeking a declaration of Bharti Pardhi’s election null and void.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that Bharti Pardhi is a returned candidate who won the election by a margin of more than 6 lakh votes against Kankar Mujare and by a margin of 1.74 lakh votes from the candidate who obtained the second-highest number of votes. Even assuming that there was a counting error in one booth’s EVM due to mechanical failure and Bharti Pardhi got all the votes in that booth, Kankar Mujare was not in a position to win the election. Nothing else was pleaded/proved regarding the machine/counting error. If there was an error in counting in one booth out of many machines in eight constituencies, i.e., 2300 polling booths, it could not be presumed that all the machines were not working properly due to a lack of pleadings. It was not the case with Kankar Munjare that the total result of the Lok Sabha election was based on the outcome of a single EVM.
Noting this, the Court stated that the working of every machine was a question of fact and not a question of law; therefore, the Court rejected this ground. The Court held that it could not be termed as a corrupt practice by Bharti Pardhi because machines were not, at any stage, under her control, and there were no pleadings or evidence regarding the working of other EVMs.
Similarly, the Court noted that Kankar Munjare made a very vague allegation regarding the battery percentage of the EVMs. No data was provided via pleadings or documents to demonstrate the battery percentage at the time of starting the polls, in the evening, or at the time of counting of votes in various EVMs. The Court reiterated that if a proceeding, suit, or election petition does not provide a cause of action, then there is no use in recording evidence of both parties. Thus, nothing would come out even if the evidence was recorded, as facts were not pleaded.
The Court stated that in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), only pleadings made in the complaint/petition are to be seen, but the petition herein did not disclose the entire set of facts as to how many booths were in the Lok Sabha Balaghat Seat, how many machines were faulty, which machine was seen regarding the battery percentage, etc. Therefore, the Court held that the petition lacked very important material particulars and, in the absence of such material particulars, no cause of action was found or could be presumed.
The Court referred to Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy, (2012) 7 SCC 788, wherein the Court stated that the election of a successful candidate is not lightly interfered with by the Courts. The Courts generally lean in favour of the returned candidates and place the onus of proof on the person challenging the result of an electoral contest. In P.C. Shamra v. Bhagwandas Sahbnani, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 9858, the Court discussed Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509, wherein the Court held that in an Election Petition, pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the Election Petition does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Considering the aforesaid, the Court held that Kankar Munjare failed to show any cause of action due to a lack of essential pleading and documentary evidence regarding charging of the EVM machine in general, the malfunction of one EVM machine, and the role of Bharti Pardhi. Accordingly, the election petition was dismissed, and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed.
[Kankar Munjare v. Bharti Pardhi, Election Petition No. 20 of 2024, decided on 05-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Nitya Nand Mishra
For the respondent: Senior Advocate G.S. Baghel and K.K. Raidas