The Bombay High Court rejected Rajan Vichare’s plea against Shiv Sena (Shinde) MP Naresh Mhaske, ruling that disclosure of minor conviction was not mandatory. Justice RI Chagla held only convictions with one-year jail or more need to be declared.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition that had challenged the Lok Sabha election of Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) Member of Parliament (MP) Naresh Ganpat Mhaske from the Thane constituency.
The case was filed by Rajan Baburao Vichare, a leader from the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray faction), who argued that Mhaske did not disclose details of his past conviction in a criminal case while submitting his nomination papers.
Mhaske’s legal team sought rejection of the election petition on the ground that the conviction was not of the kind that needed disclosure under election law.
Justice RI Chagla of the Bombay High Court agreed with this stand and held that Mhaske was not required to declare the conviction since it did not carry a sentence of imprisonment of one year or more.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vichare. While giving the order, Justice Chagla said:
“The contention of the petitioner that the present petition complies with all required pleadings under the 1951 Act would be irrelevant, particularly when the Election Petition is itself not maintainable on the ground that it fails to disclose a cause of action.”
The Court clarified the scope of disclosure required under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| CP Radhakrishnan Wins Vice President Election 2025, Defeats Sudershan Reddy
According to this provision, candidates are bound to declare only those offences in which they have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.
Justice Chagla further added:
“Further, Entry 6 of Form 26 as amended in 2018, which comes under Rule 4A, cannot transgress or breach the provisions of Section 33A (1)(ii). Accordingly, it must be read down to mean only those cases of past conviction, where there is a sentence of imprisonment of one year or more and which must be disclosed by the candidate. Any other meaning or interpretation given to Entry 6 of Form 26 would result in making Entry 6 of Form 26 unconstitutional and violative of not only Section 33A (1)(ii) of the 1951 Act, but also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in PUCL.”
The ruling essentially means that a candidate is not disqualified or bound to disclose every conviction—only those where the punishment is one year or more.
This interpretation ensures consistency with the law and avoids stretching the disclosure requirement beyond what is provided in the statute.
In this case, since Mhaske’s conviction did not fall under that category, the Court found no reason to interfere with his election to the Lok Sabha.
Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, along with Pankaj Sawant and advocates Shreenandini Mukhopadhyay, Joshna D’Souza, and Sanjay Gawde, appeared on behalf of the petitioner Rajan Baburao Vichare.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani represented Naresh Ganpat Mhaske, assisted by advocates Chirag Shah, Vishal Acharya, Shyamsundar Jadhav, Bhavya Shah, and Mehul Talera.
Advocate Hare Krishna Mishra also appeared as counsel for one of the respondents.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi Govt
