The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (February 5, 2025) dismissed an election petition filed against the victory of Mumbai North-Central Member of Parliament (MP) and Congress leader Varsha Gaikwad by her rival candidate, Asif Ali Siddiquie.
Mr. Siddiquie’s petition alleged that Ms. Gaikwad had engaged in electoral malpractices during her poll campaign.
Dismissing the petition, a Single Bench judge, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh pronounced, “The pleadings in the petition fail to set out the mandatory material facts and are completely vague. Substantial pleading is based on alleged information received by the petitioner from his source, whose name has not been disclosed, and the petition is verified as true to his knowledge without disclosing the source. The reading of the entire plaint in a meaningful manner would leave no manner of doubt that the petition fails to disclose the cause of action for questioning the election on the grounds specified. Further, the non-supply of mobile recording though referred to in the petition amounts to non-compliance with Section 81(3) leading to dismissal of the petition under Section 86(1) of Representation of the People (R.P.) Act of 1951.”
Considering that in the election petition, the pleadings have to be specific, precise and unambiguous as provided by Section 83 of the R. P. Act, 1951, where the election petition even upon holistic reading of the entire plaint does not disclose cause of action, the same is liable to be dismissed, the judged observed.
“Upon so reading of the plaint, the pleadings do not disclose any cause of action under sub-section (1) of Section 100 to maintain the election petition and is thus, liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and is accordingly, rejected. In light of the above discussion, the Interim Application is allowed. Election Petition stands dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of CPC,” the court ordered.
Mr. Siddiquie moved the High Court claiming that Ms. Gaikwad’s campaign handbills did not comply with mandatory printing norms and alleged that money was distributed to voters in exchange for votes.
Representing Ms. Gaikwad, advocate Tejas Deshmukh, said that the petition lacked material evidence and failed to elaborate on the nature of alleged false promises made in her campaign and pointed out that the petitioner had not annexed any videos to support the bribery claim and that the only named individual in the allegation, sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, Zeeshan Siddiqui, belonged to the Ajit Pawar-led faction of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), not Gaikwad’s party.
Representing Mr. Siddiquie advocate Moin Chowdhari argued that the videos were withheld from the petition out of concern for witness safety but had been presented to the police and Election Commission and alleged that Gaikwad had provided a false residential address in her court filings.
Published - February 06, 2025 09:15 am IST
