Facts
Rajan Baburao Vichare filed the Election Petition being the Petitioner in this matter against election Respondent No.1 Naresh Ganpat Mhaske from Thane Parliamentary Constituency of 2024 Lok Sabha election, on the grounds that Naresh Ganpat Mhaske suppressed his criminal antecedents in the Form 26 affidavit prescribed under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as the “1951 Act”). In particular, the Petitioner argued that Naresh Ganpat Mhaske, Respondent No.1, suppressed his conviction dated 29 February 2016 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, and the subsequent affirmation of the conviction by the Additional District Judge, Thane on 9 February 2017, so he had filed a false affidavit. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.14 applied to dismiss the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action, vague pleadings, and because the Petition did not comply with Section 83 of the 1951 Act.
Issues
1. Did the Election Petition disclose a cause of action for the purposes of Section 83 of the 1951 Act?
2. Was the omission from Form 26 of a conviction for less than one year in prison, a defect sufficient to invalidate the election?
3. Was the suppression of criminal antecedents a “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the 1951 Act?
4. Was the petition dismissed due to failure to include statutory pleadings and the reasons stated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
Legal Provisions
– Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 33A, 83, 100, and 123
– Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
– Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Section 12
– Constitution of India: Article 19(1)(a) (voter’s right to information)
Arguments
Petitioner (Rajan Vichare):
Form 26 mandates the disclosure of every conviction, regardless of the length of the sentence imposed. If the conviction is simply concealed, that is also regarded as a false and improper affidavit that constitutes “undue influence”, as set out in Section 123(2), and is therefore also a corrupt practice. The applicant relied on Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015) 15 SCC 661 and Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 318. The pleadings adequately set out the material facts alleging corrupt practice and undue influence.
Respondents (Naresh Mhaske & Ors.):
The requirement to disclose Form 26 is only triggered if convicted and imprisoned for at least two years. For Respondent No.1, he was released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and did not receive a specific period of imprisonment. Therefore, since Respondent no.1 did not receive a period of imprisonment there was no obligation to disclose the same. In fact, the disqualifications because of conviction were removed completely under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The pleadings of the Petitioner were vague, devoid of material facts, and utterly failed to show how the result of the election was materially affected. The Petitioner additionally relied on cases like PUCL v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399, Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 224.
Analysis
The Court considered Form 26 (as amended in 2018), which requires the disclosure of convictions, only in the event the candidate has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more. The Court held there was no obligation to disclose under Section 33A(1)(ii), because while Respondent No.1 had been convicted of an offence, he was given probation with no prison sentence. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act also provided statutory protection against disqualification or additional consequences of a conviction. The Court held that forms cannot supersede substantive law, and disclosure obligations must be consistent with Section 33A of the 1951 Act in mind. On the pleadings, the Court held the petitioner had made general allegations and had not provided particulars of material facts as to how the election result had been materially affected as required under Section 83 and Section 100 of the 1951 Act. Relying on PUCL and Satish Ukey v. Devendra Fadnavis (2019), the Court reiterated a voter’s right to know is important but does not go beyond the statutory scheme.
Judgment
Applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, were allowed by the Bombay High Court. The election petition was dismissed at the outset, by stating:
1. Respondent No. 1 did not need to disclose the 2016 conviction, as he did not receive a sentence of imprisonment;
2. The failure to disclose the conviction did not amount to corrupt practice under section 123 (2);
3. The petition did not contain sufficient material facts for a cause of action, pursuant to Section 83.
Thus, the election of Respondent No. 1 (Naresh Mhaske) was upheld.
Conclusion
This ruling emphasizes the concept that our election law is rigidly statutory: a court cannot judicially expand what information and disclosures the statute requires from candidates beyond the Representation of the People Act and regulations. While the value of a voter’s right to know is tempered by a need for statutory precision, the court has limited the scope of disqualification and demonstrated a preference for adherence to precise statutory language by ruling that convictions without a sentence of imprisonment do not need to be disclosed. For the petitioners, this case reiterates the need for specific pleadings and proof that the matters complained of had a material effect on the results of the election.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anwesha Anant
For Reading more please click here: rajan-baburao-vichare-v-naresh-ganpat-mhaske-ors-620665 (1)
