The Bombay High Court dismissed an election petition filed against Nitin Gadkari. The court ruled that there was no direct or indirect interference by Gadkari in the election results. It found no evidence of any attempt to manipulate the outcome. The verdict reinforces Gadkari’s clean electoral conduct, bringing an end to the legal challenge.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court in Nagpur dismissed an election petition on Wednesday that challenged Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari’s victory in the 18th Lok Sabha elections from the Nagpur constituency in April 2024.
The petition, filed by Suraj Balram Mishra, accused Gadkari’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of violating the Model Code of Conduct by creating software that printed voter details along with the candidate’s photograph, name, and party symbol, which were then distributed to voters.
The petition claimed that this action was intended to influence voters and constituted a corrupt practice.
However, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke found the petition lacking in “material facts,” describing it as based on “an incomplete cause of action.”
The Court noted that there was no direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere by the candidate, as alleged. It concluded that the petition did not provide sufficient material facts or demonstrate how the alleged actions had materially impacted the election results.
In his petition, Mishra accused the BJP of distributing slips to voters that featured Gadkari’s photograph, name, and the party’s election symbol. He further alleged that these slips were created using specially developed software, which he claimed was installed on devices provided to polling booth representatives throughout Nagpur.
According to Mishra, the machines printed voter information alongside Gadkari’s image, name, and party symbol. He argued that these actions represented a clear violation of the Model Code of Conduct, as they could inappropriately influence voters by establishing a direct connection to the candidate and his party.
Also Read: Threat Calls to Nitin Gadkari| “Submit closure Report to The Proper Forum”: Court to NIA
Mishra maintained that such practices were corrupt and not only breached electoral regulations but also offered Gadkari an unfair advantage.
In response, Gadkari’s legal counsel contended that the petition was vague and lacked specific details regarding the creation of the software, the distribution of the slips, and the authorization for using the machines.
The counsel stressed that there was no evidence indicating that Gadkari was aware of or consented to these actions.
Additionally, they pointed out that the petition failed to demonstrate how the alleged violation had materially impacted the election outcome.
In its decision, the Court observed that while the petitioner claimed a software had been created to produce these slips, the pleadings did not clarify who obtained the machines, who operated them, or whether they were used with the candidate’s consent, nor did they explain how these actions influenced voters.
The Court also emphasized that according to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), an election petition must provide a clear statement of material facts and detailed particulars of any alleged corrupt practices.
The Court highlighted that such particulars should encompass the names of the individuals involved, the specific dates and locations of the events, and how the alleged actions impacted the election results.
In this instance, the petitioner did not meet this requirement, leading to a petition that lacked the essential factual details needed to substantiate the claims of corrupt practices, the Court noted.
The order stated,
“The proper verification, analysis, and authentication of the pleadings is a mandatory requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act, and the failure to comply with this is detrimental to the petitioner’s case. Furthermore, there are no pleadings indicating that the result of the returned candidate has been materially affected,”
The Court emphasized that election petitions must present clear and specific material facts that demonstrate how the alleged violations materially influenced the election outcome.
The judgment stated,
“From the pleadings of the petitioner, there is no indication of any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere by the candidate,”
As a result, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing that the costs incurred by Gadkari in contesting the petition be borne by Mishra.
Petitioner Suraj Mishra represented himself, while Senior Advocate SV Manohar, assisted by Advocate Atharva Manohar, appeared on behalf of Nitin Gadkari.
Case Title: Suraj Balram Mishra v Chief Executive Officer and Officer of Code of Conduct
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
