Mere Roadshow By Star Campaigner On Polling Day Not 'Undue Influence': Bombay High Court Upholds Election Of Shinde Sena Leader

A mere visit to a constituency by a 'Star Campaigner' on the polling day would not be enough to constitute 'undue influence' or 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of People Act of 1951, held the Bombay High Court. The High Court also refused to accept that a mere visit by then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in Mumbai's Chandivali area during the 2025 State Assembly elections, which was later converted into a 'road show', on the polling day itself, was an attempt to interfere with the elections. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan upheld the election of Dilip Lande, a Shiv Sena (Shinde Faction) leader, from the Chandivali constituency in Mumbai and dismissed the election petition filed by Md. Arif Naseem Khan, a candidate of the Congress party. In his election petition, Khan had contended that on the polling day, Shinde the then CM, visited Chandivali, met some party workers, gave blessings to Lande and then a massive road show ensued, which Khan contended 'affected' the results of the elections as otherwise, he would have easily won from the said seat. Khan alleged that this road show of Shinde, a 'star campaigner' of his party was clearly a violation of Section 123(2) of the Act and amounted to 'undue influence' or 'corrupt practice.'"The use of 'influence' to disrupt the ordinary course of expected conduct by the candidate or the electorate is what makes it 'undue influence.' There has to be an attempt to interfere with what would have happened in the ordinary course for undue influence to occur. Therefore, the appearance of the star campaigner, Shinde, in the Constituency by itself would not be enough. There ought to be something more to show that such visit interfered with what would have been the ordinary flow of conduct by the electorate for the visit to have had undue influence on the electorate," Justice Sundaresan held in the order pronounced on March 7.The judge further added, "When seen through this lens, I am afraid the Petition does not indicate how Shinde's visit interfered with the exercise of electoral will in order to constitute undue influence. There is no pleading of such visit leading to any threat, or any inducement, which need not have been of divine displeasure (that is just an example in the proviso). For the visit by Shinde during prohibited campaign hour to constitute undue influence, the pleadings ought to show how the visit disrupted what would have been the ordinary exercise of electoral will."The judge while referring to the pleadings with a "fine tooth comb" stated that the same fell short of indicating how such influence (visit of Shinde) was undue influence. It does not even have a whisper of whether during such visit, any threat, coercion, inducement, fraud or any misrepresentation was made by such visit, for the material fact of undue influence to be considered as having been pleaded, the judge noted. The judge noted that the pleadings simply stated that Shinde's visit during the prohibited time of 48 hours was violative of section 126 of the Act, which the judge said, the visit of Shinde, however violative of Section 126 of the Act, cannot constitute undue influence if it rallied the loyal base of the party or Shinde himself. "A careful reading of the pleadings would indicate that the visit allegedly rallied those who would be enthused by Shinde's presence, which indeed constitutes a campaign to influence votes. Energising loyalists who would be enthused by the star campaigner's presence would indicate the deployment of influence and not the deployment of undue influence. That would not necessarily point to such a campaign constituting one of 'undue influence'," Justice Sundaresan held. Taking this at its highest, the judge opined, that such a campaign, if the allegations are right, would constitute a violation of Section 126 of the Act, which has its own sanction – in fact, a criminal sanction. However, the standard of Section 126 of the Act being violated would not automatically lead to such a campaign being a “corrupt practice” for purposes of Section 123, the bench clarified."To my mind, the pleadings are nothing more than a simple and bald averment that but for the visit, Khan would have won," the judge held. Further, the judge pointed out that the pleadings in the instant election petition fell short of establishing any 'undue influence' or 'corrupt practice' by Lande to win the elections and therefore, dismissed the said said election petition. Appearance:Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar along with Advocates RD Soni, Sakshi Agarwal and Bipin Joshi appeared for Khan. Advocates Shardul Singh and Ninad Thikekar instructed by SHS Chambers represented Lande. Advocates Naira Jejeebhoy, Arun Panickar, Tanmay Pawar, Vinay Nair and Ayush Yadav represented other Respondents. Case Title: Md Arif Lalan Khan alias Naseem Khan vs Dilip Bhausaheb Lande (Election Petition 9 of 2025)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 99Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Mere Roadshow By Star Campaigner On Polling Day Not 'Undue Influence': Bombay High Court Upholds Election Of Shinde Sena Leader

Narsi Benwal

Tags