The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the results of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, holding that the petition failed to disclose any material facts establishing a cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The judgment underscores the non-negotiable requirement of precise, specific pleadings in election disputes, particularly when alleging irregularities in electronic voting systems.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The election petition was filed by Pramod Ratan Patil, a candidate in the 144-Kalyan Rural constituency, challenging the victory of Rajesh Govardhan More, the returned candidate, in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections held on 20 November 2024. The results were declared on 23 November 2024, with the respondent securing 1,40,770 votes and the petitioner securing 74,412 votes - a margin of 66,358 votes. The petitioner sought a declaration that he had been duly elected, alleging systemic irregularities in the functioning of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems.
Key Facts
- Election held on: 20 November 2024
- Results declared by Returning Officer on: 23 November 2024
- Election Petition lodged on: 6 January 2025
- Concise Statement of Material Facts filed on: 9 January 2025
- Petitioner claimed discrepancies in 17 EVM sets, including mismatched B.U./C.U. numbers, absence of Form 17C, improper sealing, and failure to verify 5% of burnt memory microcontrollers
- Annexed exhibits: Form 17C from Booth No. 338 (Exhibit D), Form 17C from Booth No. 45 (Exhibit E), and a list of EVM IDs (Exhibit F-colly)
- Letter dated 26 November 2024 sent by petitioner to District Election Officer requesting VVPAT recount, but no request made for verification of burnt memory chips
Procedural History
- 20 November 2024: General elections held in Maharashtra
- 23 November 2024: Results declared; Rajesh Govardhan More declared elected
- 6 January 2025: Election Petition filed before Bombay High Court
- 9 January 2025: Concise Statement of Material Facts filed
- 26 March 2026: Arguments concluded; judgment reserved
- 9 April 2026: Judgment pronounced dismissing the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner (Pramod Ratan Patil): Alleged that discrepancies between EVM data and VVPAT slips, non-availability of Form 17C for certain booths, improper sealing of EVMs, and failure to verify 5% of microcontrollers under Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI rendered the election results unreliable. Claimed the result was materially affected and that he received a majority of valid votes.
Respondent (Rajesh Govardhan More): Contended that the petition was barred by limitation, failed to disclose any material facts, and did not comply with Section 83 of the RP Act. Argued that vague, conclusory allegations without specific data or nexus to vote manipulation could not sustain an election challenge.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Declaration that his election was valid
- Nullification of the respondent’s election
- Direction to the Returning Officer and ECI to count all 17 VVPAT slips
- Declaration that the petitioner received a majority of valid votes under Section 101 of the RP Act
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an election petition that alleges irregularities in EVM-VVPAT matching, but fails to plead specific material facts demonstrating how such irregularities materially affected the result in favor of the returned candidate, discloses a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petition disclosed a triable issue regarding EVM-VVPAT discrepancies, citing Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh and Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. Yaduvansh Singh to support the proposition that allegations of vote-counting anomalies are sufficient to proceed to trial. He emphasized that the petition sought VVPAT verification under statutory mandates and that non-joinder of the Returning Officer was a curable defect. He relied on Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma to argue that the date of declaration (23 November 2024) should be excluded in computing the 45-day limitation period, making the filing on 6 January 2025 timely.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that the petition was defective on multiple grounds: (1) it failed to plead specific B.U./C.U. numbers or VVPAT IDs that were mismatched; (2) it did not establish how any discrepancy led to improper reception or acceptance of void votes; (3) the annexed exhibits lacked correlation with the allegations; and (4) the claim under Section 101(b) was entirely absent - no assertion was made that the petitioner received a majority of valid votes. He relied on Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez to argue that omission of a single material fact renders the petition liable to dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 83 of the RP Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the petition’s pleadings, particularly Paragraph 9, which formed the core of the petitioner’s allegations. It held that mere assertion of discrepancies without specifying the exact nature, location, or quantitative impact of those discrepancies could not constitute a cause of action.
"The pleading in paragraph 9(c)(i) of the Election Petition makes no mention of the numbers appearing either on the EVM or Form 17C and merely annexes Form 17C of Booth No 338 as Exhibit 'D'. Perusal of Form 17C reflects the B.U. and C.U. numbers and VVPAT Id. Based only on the document that is Form 17C without any pleading in that respect, no case of discrepancy between the numbers as alleged is made out."
The Court found that Exhibit F-colly, purportedly containing a list of EVM IDs from the ECI, did not contain any highlighted serial numbers as claimed, and no corresponding list from the Returning Officer was annexed. The allegation regarding 5% microcontroller verification was based on a misreading of Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI, which requires a written request from a candidate ranked second or third, which the petitioner had not made.
Regarding sealing irregularities under Rule 49T, the Court noted that the petition did not allege that polling agents were denied the right to affix their seals, nor did it specify how the sealing process deviated from statutory norms. The Court emphasized:
"Unless and until it is pleaded that the alleged discrepancies have resulted in improper reception of votes, the assertion of mere discrepancy in the EVM or Form 17C by itself is insufficient to disclose any cause of action for the purpose of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of R.P. Act."
The Court further held that Paragraph 12, the only paragraph attempting to link discrepancies to material effect on the result, was a single, convoluted sentence lacking factual specificity. It failed to state how many votes were improperly counted, which booths were affected, or how the returned candidate’s margin was altered.
The Court applied the test from Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar: omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action. It concluded that the petition was not merely weak - it was legally insufficient.
The Verdict
The Election Petition was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that the petition failed to disclose any cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner’s claim for declaration of election as valid was rejected. The Court found no merit in the contention that the petition was filed within limitation, as the filing date (6 January 2025) was within the 45-day window excluding 23 November 2024, but dismissed the petition on substantive grounds. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Material Facts Must Be Specific, Not Conclusory
- Practitioners must plead exact EVM IDs, booth numbers, B.U./C.U. discrepancies, and VVPAT mismatch counts - generalized allegations will be dismissed
- Annexed documents must be explicitly linked to allegations; mere attachment without textual correlation is insufficient
Section 101 Claims Require Explicit Pleading of Majority Votes
- A claim under Section 101(b) cannot be inferred; the petition must state: "The petitioner received a majority of valid votes" or "But for corrupt practices, the petitioner would have won"
- Failure to plead this negates the entire relief sought under Section 101
VVPAT Verification Requests Must Be Documented and Specific
- A request for VVPAT recount must be formally documented and submitted to the Returning Officer
- Reliance on judicial directions (e.g., 5% microcontroller check) requires proof of compliance with preconditions (e.g., candidate ranking, written request)
- Courts will not entertain speculative claims based on misinterpretations of Supreme Court orders
Non-Joinder Is Curable, But Not a Substitute for Substance
- While non-joinder of Returning Officer or ECI is a curable defect under Section 86, it cannot compensate for the absence of material facts
- Courts will not allow procedural leniency to mask substantive deficiency
Limitation Is Not a Shield for Defective Pleadings
- Even if filed within 45 days, an election petition lacking material facts is liable to be dismissed at threshold
- The doctrine of substantial compliance applies only to Section 81, not Section 83
