The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari from the Nagpur constituency in the 18th Lok Sabha elections. The petition, filed by Suraj Mishra, alleged that Gadkari and his party members engaged in corrupt practices by distributing voter slips containing his photograph and the BJP symbol, thereby violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).
Mishra claimed that several BJP workers at multiple polling booths used special machines equipped with software to print voter details along with Gadkari’s photograph and the party symbol. These slips were then allegedly distributed to voters, and the software was linked to BJP workers’ mobile phones. The petitioner contended that this practice influenced voters and breached electoral regulations.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Quashes Maharashtra GR on Sugarcane FRP, Protecting Farmers' Rights
"The chits distributed to voters contained photographs of Nitin Gadkari and the BJP symbol, which constitutes a violation of the Model Code of Conduct," Mishra argued in his petition.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, presiding over the case, dismissed the petition, stating that the allegations were vague and lacked substantive evidence to demonstrate how the alleged misconduct materially affected the election outcome. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a complete cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act.
"Material facts such as who procured the machines, who used them, and whether they were used with the candidate’s consent are crucial elements that must be pleaded to establish corrupt practices," the court noted.
Further, the court highlighted that merely stating a violation of the MCC without demonstrating its impact on the election results was insufficient to invalidate Gadkari’s victory.
The judgment emphasized that under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, to prove corrupt practices, it is essential to show that a candidate or their agent was directly involved in hiring or procuring the alleged machines. The petitioner’s failure to provide this information led the court to conclude that no valid case was made.
"The entire pleadings fail to specify who procured and used the machines and how they were employed to influence voters," the court observed.
In addition to dismissing the petition, the court ordered Mishra to pay the litigation costs incurred by Gadkari. This decision was based on Section 119 of the Representation of the People Act, which entitles the returned candidate to recover costs incurred in defending an election petition.
"In accordance with Section 119, the returned candidate is entitled to recover costs from the petitioner," the court ruled.
With these observations, the Bombay High Court concluded that no substantial grounds existed to challenge Gadkari’s election, and the petition was dismissed.
Appearance: Suraj Mishra appeared as party-in-person.
Senior Advocate SV Manohar along with Advocate Atharva Manohar represented Nitin Gadkari.
Case Title: Suraj Mishra vs Chief Executive Officer (Election Petition 3 of 2024)
