HC dismisses plea against Sena (UBT) leader Anil Desai’s election as MP

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has dismissed a petition challenging the election of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Anil Desai as Lok Sabha member in the 2024 parliamentary polls, noting the plea “did not disclose a cause of action for questioning the election”.
A single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed the election petition filed by one Mahendra Bhingardive, who had also contested the Lok Sabha polls.
Bhingardive had alleged multiple defects in Desai’s nomination papers, including incomplete or incorrect information in the affidavit, missing signatures, and blank columns.
He further claimed that Desai’s daughter’s ownership share in residential property was not disclosed properly and that the affidavit had been uploaded multiple times on the election commission’s website, showing discrepancies. Similar defects were alleged in the nomination papers of 13 other candidates, including missing information and improperly completed affidavits.
Bhingardive argued that the acceptance of these defective nomination forms by the returning officer violated the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), materially affecting the election outcome. The petition sought to have the nomination papers declared invalid and requested a declaration that Bhingardive was the duly elected candidate.
Senior advocate Devdatt Kamat, representing Desai, contended that the petition did not satisfy the legal requirements for challenging an election under the RP Act. He argued that the alleged defects were not of a substantial nature, as required to invalidate the election. He also pointed out that the responsibility for uploading nomination documents on the Election Commission’s website lay with the Returning Officer, not the candidates.
Bhingardive, representing himself, argued that the defects in the affidavits and nomination papers, such as incomplete declarations and blank sections, were significant enough to warrant rejection under the RP Act. He cited the Returning Officer’s failure to address these issues during the scrutiny process as grounds for invalidating the election results.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in her ruling, found that the election petition did not disclose a valid cause of action. The court noted that under the RP Act, for an election to be declared void due to improper acceptance of a nomination, it must be demonstrated that the defects were of a substantial nature and materially affected the election outcome. The petition lacked specific pleadings showing how the alleged defects had influenced the election, which saw Desai secure 3,95,138 votes.
The court observed that minor issues, such as missing signatures on non-essential sections of the affidavit or blank columns, did not constitute substantial defects. It was emphasised that election petitions must meet the statutory requirements for specificity and materiality in their pleadings, which was not the case here.
Additionally, the court rejected the application to amend the election petition to include new claims, citing that the statutory deadline for filing election challenges had passed. The court also dismissed all pending interim applications related to the case.