Bombay High Court dismisses election petition against Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Patil

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of Sanjay Dina Patil, a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) candidate, from the Mumbai North-East Parliamentary Constituency [Shahaji Nanai Thorat v State of Maharashtra and Ors.]..Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed the plea after noting that the petitioner, Shahaji Nanai Thorat had failed to implead all contesting candidates to his petition even though he was also sought the declaration of himself as the successful election candidate.The Court explained that the impleadment of all contesting candidates was mandatory under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act when the petitioner was seeking a declaration of their own election."The Election Petition filed by the Petitioner does not comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 82 of the Act and on this ground alone, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed," the Court held..In his election petition, Shahaji Nanai Thorat had contended that Patil’s election should be invalidated because he failed to list his mother's name alongside his father's in his nomination papers.This oversight, according to Thorat, undermined Patil’s eligibility. Patil had won the election by a margin of approximately 29,800 votes against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Mihir Kotecha. .Thorat had stood as an independent election candidate in the same election. Appearing in person before the High Court, he argued that he had taken steps to ensure compliance with Section 82 by filing an application seeking the issuance of summons to the 18 contesting candidates who were not originally impleaded.He contended that the issuance of summons was sufficient to comply with the mandatory requirement of impleadment under Section 82.Further, he argued that Section 81, which prescribes a 45-day limitation period for filing election petitions, does not explicitly require the impleadment of all contesting candidates within this timeframe. He claimed that this provision created an ambiguity that should not work to his disadvantage.He also alleged that he initially sought to implead all contesting candidates but was advised by the court registry to exclude them and limit to impleading the returned candidate and official respondents in the petition..On the other hand, Patil argued that the failure to implead all candidates was a fundamental defect that cannot be remedied by subsequent applications or summons.He further argued that the petitioner’s application for summons only sought to notify the contesting candidates, not to formally implead them.Patil also highlighted that the statutory limitation of 45 days from the date of election applies to all required elements of a valid petition, including impleadment on necessary parties. Patil added that the failure to include all contesting candidates as parties to the case within this period rendered Thorat's petition incurably defective.It was further highlighted that the petitioner unnecessarily impleaded official respondents, including the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, who are not proper parties in election petitions under established legal precedents..The Court agreed that Thorat's failure to implead all contesting candidates was a fundamental defect, and filing an application for summons could not remedy this.It further observed that any attempt to implead candidates beyond the 45-day limitation period contravened Section 81 and that the petitioner’s application for summons, filed months later, could not cure this defect.The Court noted that election petitions are not a fundamental or common law right and require strict compliance with statutory provisions. Accordingly, it dismissed the election petition and rejected the petitioner’s application for summons.Consequently, Sanjay Dina Patil’s election from the Mumbai North-East Parliamentary Constituency was upheld..Patil was represented by advocates Vijay Nair, Prashant P Kulkarni and Rachna Mamnani.The State of Maharashtra was represented by Assistant Government Pleader Himanshu B Takke.The Union of India was represented by advocates Shruti Vyas and DP Singh.The Collector & District Election Officer Returning was represented by advocates Tejas Deshmukh and HD Chavan..[Read Judgment]