Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Challenging MLA's Election Over Alleged EVM-VVPAT Discrepancies

The Bombay High Court has held that an election petition alleging discrepancies between EVM data and VVPAT slips is liable to be dismissed where it does not disclose material facts constituting a complete cause of action. The Court observed that mere assertions of discrepancies without pleading how such discrepancies materially affected the election result are insufficient under the statutory framework.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh was hearing an application filed by the returned candidate under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of an election petition challenging his election from the 144-Kalyan Rural Assembly Constituency in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections held on 20.11.2024. The election petitioner sought recounting and tallying of EVM data with VVPAT slips and a declaration that the returned candidate's election be set aside and the petitioner be declared elected.

At the outset, the Court dealt with the objection on limitation and held that the election petition had been filed within the prescribed period of 45 days from the date of declaration of results, excluding the first day. It also held that defects relating to the filing of a concise statement of material facts and non-joinder of parties were curable and did not warrant dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act.

The Court then examined whether the petition disclosed a cause of action in terms of Sections 100 and 101 of the Act. It noted that the principal ground raised by the petitioner was an alleged discrepancy between the EVM control unit data and the VVPAT slips. With respect to discrepancies in Form 17C and EVM numbers, the Court observed that the petition failed to specify the relevant numbers or demonstrate how any inconsistency existed. It held that merely annexing documents without corresponding pleadings could not establish a case of discrepancy.

The Court held that the petition failed to set out any facts showing that the alleged discrepancies resulted in an increase of votes in favour of the returned candidate or that the petitioner had secured a majority of valid votes.

“Unless and until it is pleaded that the alleged discrepancies have resulted in improper reception of votes, the assertion of mere discrepancy in the EVM or Form 17 C by itself is insufficient to disclose any cause of action for the purpose of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of R.P. Act.,” the Court observed.

The Court emphasised that election petitions require strict compliance with statutory requirements and cannot be based on vague or general allegations.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and dismissed the election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for non-disclosure of the cause of action.

Case Title: Rajesh Govardhan More vs. Pramod Ratan Patil & Ors. [Application (L) No. 10196 of 2025 in Election Petition No. 24 of 2025]

Appearances:

Mr. Nilesh Pandey, Mr. Sameer S. Vispute, Ms. Sayali Shinde, Mr. Rishabh Dubey for Petitioner.

Mr. Chirag Shah, Mr. Bhavya Shah i/b Mr. Vishal Acharya for Applicant/Respondent No. 1.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 178

Click Here To Read/Download Order