The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed an application filed by Pimpri (Scheduled Caste reserved) MLA Anna Dadu Bansode seeking to reject at the threshold an election petition challenging his victory in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly polls.
Justice Gauri Godse, in an order passed on November 20, held that the petition disclosed a cause of action and complied with statutory requirements under the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, and therefore warrants a full trial.
The application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, a provision that lets courts reject a case at the start if the petition does not show any valid reason to proceed. The court found that the petition met the requirements of Section 83 of the RP Act, 1951, which mandates that an election petition must include a clear statement of key facts and proper verification.
“By no stretch of imagination, however, it can be said that the material fact, that is, the allegations regarding the challenge to the election on the grounds contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Act have not been stated in the petition for rejecting the petition at the threshold,” Justice Godse observed.
Poll irregularities
The election petition, filed by Sulakshana Raju Dhar, who finished second in the November 20, 2024 election with 72,575 votes against Mr. Bansode’s 1,09,239, alleged that the result was materially affected by irregularities.
Ms. Dhar claimed Mr. Bansode suppressed details of assets and liabilities in his nomination affidavit under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and that objections she raised on October 30, 2024 were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. She also alleged non-compliance with Section 61-A governing the use of voting machines, stating that EVM-VVPAT units carried detachable stickers instead of permanent serial numbers, raising concerns over compliance with mandatory safeguards. Her RTI request for Form 17-C and video recordings of polling was denied on January 2, 2025.
Mr. Bansode’s counsel argued that the petition was vague, defectively verified, and non-compliant with Sections 81 and 83, citing Supreme Court rulings such as Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal, Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar to contend that election petitions are strictly statutory and must set out material facts and full particulars.
Ms. Dhar’s counsel countered that the pleadings were based on personal knowledge and observations, supported by revenue records and annexures verified under Section 83(2), with Form 25 filed as required.
Justice Godse noted that the petition raised two sets of allegations: personal asset disclosure and nomination objections and procedural EVM compliance and voter roll irregularities, and that these, if proved, could materially affect the election result under Section 100(1)(d)(i) (improper acceptance of nomination) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) (non-compliance with election law).
The High Court distinguished between “material facts” and “particulars,” holding that the former were adequately pleaded and that evidence can be led at trial.
The order said, “Section 83(1) of the Act, read with Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code, have been pleaded by the petitioner, and the cause of action has been disclosed. Therefore, the petition cannot be rejected at the threshold. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the Interim Application is dismissed.”
Published – November 21, 2025 01:30 am IST
