Bombay HC rejects petition against Mumbai BJP legislator’s election

The Bombay high court stated that an election petition can be filed only by an affected candidate of voter of constituency

The Bombay high court (HC) recently rejected an election petition filed by a Pune resident against the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Mangal Prabhat Lodha from Malabar Hill constituency on the grounds that the petitioner is neither a candidate nor a voter who was affected by the election. The court further held that though the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act permits any person to approach a court against false information provided by a candidate, the guidelines provide other remedies, and as the petitioner does not conform to the same, the petition is not maintainable.

The Bombay high court said that the petition was not maintainable on two main grounds: the first being that as per Representation of People’s Act, the petitioner was neither a candidate nor was he a voter of the constituency in Mumbai from which Lodha was elected in the 2019 elections. (HT FILE)

The single judge bench of justice BP Colabawalla, while hearing an interim application filed against Lodha in an election petition, was informed by advocates Amogh Singh and Jeet Gandhi that the plea was not maintainable on two main grounds. The first being that as per RP Act, the petitioner was neither a candidate nor was he a voter of the constituency from which Lodha was elected in the 2019 elections.

Secondly, the advocates argued that as per the guidelines issued by the Election Commission (EC) in 2014, the petitioner could not raise the objections of false information being provided by Lodha in his affidavit or of suppressing information as the petitioner did not conform to the definition of aggrieved person as he was neither a voter nor a candidate.

The election petition was filed by Manish Jadhav, who was represented by advocates Khushboo Oswal and HS Shinde. The petition had challenged the 2019 election of Lodha on the grounds that the declaration given by him in form 26 was false and he had concealed information which according to RP Act amounted to corrupt practice. The advocates also stated that as per EC guidelines of April 26, 2014, it was “open to any aggrieved person to move a petition before the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for action under section 125A of RP Act.” In light of this submission, Oswal submitted that though Jadhav was a resident of Pune, his petition was valid.

After hearing the submissions, the bench referred to that Supreme Court judgment in the Tej Bahadur Singh vs Narendra Modi case, wherein the Apex court had clearly stated that a person who is neither a voter nor a candidate of a constituency cannot file an election petition, and hence as Jadhav did not have a locus, his petition was not maintainable.

With regards to the guidelines of EC and its applicability to Jadhav, the bench stated, “These guidelines, therefore, have to be read in the context of section 125A, which provides an independent remedy against the candidate who has breached the provisions of the section. This still, would not give the original petitioner [Jadhav] the locus to file an election petition under Section 81 of the said Act if the original respondent [Lodha] does not comply with the conditions as set out in the said section.”

The court then allowed the interim application and dismissed the election petition.