Bombay High Court dismisses election petition against Nitin Gadkari

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur on Wednesday dismissed an election petition challenging Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari's victory to 18th Lok Sabha from the Nagpur constituency in the April 2024 General Lok Sabha elections [Suraj Balram Mishra v Chief Executive Officer and Officer of Code of Conduct].The petition, filed by one Suraj Balram Mishra, accused Gadkari's party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of violating the Model Code of Conduct by creating a software that printed voter details alongside the candidate's photograph, name and the party symbol, and distributing these slips to voters. The petition alleged that this act was intended to influence voters and amounted to corrupt practice.However, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke dismissed the petition after concluding that it was devoid of "material facts" and was based on “an incomplete cause of action.”The Court observed that there was no direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate as alleged.It found that the petition failed to provide the necessary material facts or establish how the alleged actions had materially affected the election results..In his petition, Mishra accused the BJP of distributing slips to voters, which contained a photograph of Gadkari, his name and the BJP's election symbol. He further claimed that these slips were designed using a specially developed software. According to the petitioner, this software was installed on machines provided to polling booth representatives across Nagpur. The machines printed voter details along with the photograph, name and party symbol of Gadkari, the petitioner alleged..Mishra argued that these actions were a clear violation of the Model Code of Conduct, as they could unduly influence voters by providing them with a direct connection to the candidate and his party. Mishra contended that these actions were corrupt practices that not only violated the electoral code but also resulted in an unfair advantage to Gadkari.Gadkari’s counsel argued that the petition was vague and lacked specifics about who created the software, who distributed the slips and who authorized the use of the machines. .The counsel emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that these actions were carried out with Gadkari’s knowledge or consent. Moreover, the counsel pointed out that the petition did not establish how the alleged violation had a material effect on the election result.In its ruling, the Court noted that while the petitioner claimed a software had been developed to generate these slips, the entire pleadings nowhere disclosed as to who procured the said machines, who were using the said machines and whether the said machines were used with the consent of the returned candidate and how it was used to influence the voters..Further, the Court highlighted that under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), an election petition must include a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any alleged corrupt practice. The Court stressed that these particulars should include the names of the individuals involved, the dates and locations of the events and how the alleged actions affected the election result. In the present case, the petitioner failed to comply with this requirement, resulting in a petition that lacked the necessary factual details to support the claims of corrupt practices, the Court said..“The proper verification analyzing and authenticating the pleadings is mandatory requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act and as there was failure to comply the same is fatal to the petitioner’s case. Moreover, there is no pleading to indicate that the result of the returned candidate has been materially affected,” the order stated. The Court emphasised that election petitions must include clear and specific material facts that establish how the alleged violations materially affected the election result.“From the pleadings of the petitioner nowhere it reflects that there was any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate,” the judgment stated.Consequently, the petition was dismissed with the direction that the costs incurred by Gadkari in contesting the petition be borne by Mishra..Petitioner Suraj Mishra appeared in person. Senior Advocate SV Manohar assisted by advocate Atharva Manohar appeared for Nitin Gadkari..[Read Judgment]