Every Discrepant Statement During Campaign Is Not 'Corrupt Practice': Jharkhand HC Upholds Election Of Chandradeo Mahato In 2024 Polls
On 3 February 2026, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the election of Chandradeo Mahato from the Sindri Assembly Constituency, holding that every discrepancy in an election campaign cannot, by itself, be treated as a 'corrupt practice' unless it is shown to be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of other contesting candidates by misleading voters.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary was hearing an election petition filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with Section 100(1)(a), (b) and (d)(i) & (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the returned candidate from the 38, Sindri Assembly Constituency in the October–November 2024 Jharkhand Assembly elections.
The returned candidate secured 1,05,136 votes, while the runner-up, the BJP candidate, secured 1,01,688 votes. The election petitioner, who was the official candidate of the All India Forward Bloc, polled 737 votes. The petitioner raised four principal allegations of violations of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
First, it was alleged that the security deposit of ₹10,000 was not made in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the amount was deposited with the Nazir and not with the Returning Officer or in the Government treasury. Second, it was alleged that the affidavit filed along with the nomination papers did not carry the prescribed stamps. Third, it was alleged that the voters were misled during the election campaign, as the respondent projected himself as a candidate of CPI (ML), whereas the official name of the party is CPI (ML) (Liberation), and the word “Liberation” was omitted from the election pamphlets. Fourth, it was alleged that the pending criminal cases of the returned candidate and the details thereof were required to be published in two leading newspapers, and that this requirement was not complied with.
Relying upon settled principles governing election disputes, the High Court held that an election can be declared void only on the grounds specifically contemplated under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that the petitioner must specifically plead and establish that the alleged non-compliance had materially affected the result of the election or constituted a corrupt practice, duly supported by an affidavit.
Dealing with the allegation relating to the deposit of security money, the Court noted that the pleadings did not state that the amount had not been deposited at all, but only that it had been deposited with the Nazir and not before the Returning Officer. The Court held that this was “very peripheral” and could not be a ground to invalidate the election.
On the plea that the prescribed stamps were not affixed on the affidavit, the Court termed the objection as “equally flippant”, observing that, in any event, the omission was attributable to the Notary and the returned candidate could not be held responsible for the same.
As regards the omission of the word “Liberation” from the election pamphlets, the Court held that such omission could not, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have misled voters to the detriment of the election petitioner. The Court categorically observed that each and every discrepancy during an election campaign cannot, by itself, amount to a corrupt practice, and that to invalidate an election, the act complained of must be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the other contesting candidates by misleading the electorate. The Court Held:
“Each and every discrepancy in election campaign, cannot by itself be said to come within meaning of corrupt practice so as to make it a ground to declare the election as invalid. Discrepant statement during election campaign should have the effect or potential to qualitatively influence the election result. It is difficult to comprehend how this omission did materially affect the election result. In order to call it a discrepant and misleading statement so as to be called corrupt practice under Sub-section 4 of Section 123 of the Act, 1951, it should be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the other contesting candidates in the election, by misleading the voters. This Court is of the view that the omission was inconsequential and cannot be said to have in any way influenced the election result. This plea even if it is accepted, is not sufficient for the relief claimed in the election petition”
On the allegation that a misleading publication had appeared in a daily newspaper regarding the alleged conviction of the returned candidate, the High Court noted that there was no averment whatsoever in the election petition to show that the returned candidate had in fact been convicted of any offence.
The Court further held that the pleadings raised in the election petition did not disclose any cause of action for the reliefs sought. It found that there was no factual assertion on the basis of which a prima facie inference could be drawn that a false statement had been made on affidavit, that any corrupt practice had been committed by the returned candidate, his election agent, or any other person with his consent.
Accordingly, the election petition was rejected at the threshold, and costs of ₹50,000 were imposed on the petitioner.
Title: Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato v. Chandradeo Mahato
Case Number: E.P. No. 01 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall and Mr. Shiwam Lath appeared for the Petitioner. Senior Advocate Mr. V. P. Singh, assisted by Mr. Arshad Hussain, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samarendra, Mr. Parth Sarthi and Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, appeared for the Respondent.