Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Nitin Gadkari’s Election Over Alleged Malpractices

In a significant relief to Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition challenging his election to the 18th Lok Sabha from the Nagpur constituency. The petition, filed by Suraj Mishra, accused Gadkari of engaging in malpractices by distributing voter slips featuring his photograph and the BJP symbol.

Allegations of Violations of Model Code of Conduct

Mishra claimed that during the election, BJP workers distributed slips containing Gadkari’s photograph and the BJP symbol at multiple polling booths, violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). He alleged that special machines with software created by the BJP were used to print these slips and distribute them to voters via mobile phones. The petitioner argued that these actions amounted to corrupt practices and materially affected the election results.

Court’s Ruling

Single-judge Justice Urmila Johsi-Phalke dismissed the election petition, ruling that the allegations made by Mishra were vague and failed to establish how the alleged actions impacted the election results. The judge emphasized that the petition lacked the necessary material facts to substantiate claims of corrupt practices under the Representation of Peoples Act (RPC).

The court noted that Mishra’s pleadings did not provide details on who procured or used the machines, or whether these actions had any significant impact on the outcome of the election. Justice Joshi-Phalke stated, “Material facts as to corrupt practices by whom, at which place, and how the election was materially affected are basic requirements.”

Failure to Prove Corrupt Practices

The court pointed out that to establish a case under Section 123(5) of the RPC, the petition must show that the candidate or their agent procured or used machines to influence voters. Since this was not proven, the petition was considered incomplete and failed to meet the required legal criteria to declare Gadkari’s election void.

Cost of Litigation

In addition to dismissing the petition, the court also ordered Suraj Mishra to pay litigation costs to Nitin Gadkari, as per Section 119 of the RPC Act, which entitles the returned candidate to recover the costs incurred in defending the petition. The costs were to be paid in accordance with Section 121 of the Act.

Case Title: Suraj Mishra vs Chief Executive Officer (Election Petition 3 of 2024)