MP High Court Dismisses Congress Leader Prakash Mangilal Sharma's Plea Challenging Election Of BJP MLA Alleging EVM Tampering

Justice Vishal Dhagat in his order observed, “As per Section 81 election petition can be filed on grounds mentioned in Section 100(1) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Election petition is filed on grounds under Section 100(1) (b) i.e. corrupt practice has been committed by returned candidate or his agent or other person with consent of returned candidate. Section 83 lays down full particulars of corrupt practice is to be mentioned. Therefore, Section 81, 83 and 100 is to be read together and non-compliance of Section 83 and 100 will also lead to dismissal of petition under Section 86.”

An election petition was filed under Section 80 and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by Congress Leader Prakash Mangilal Sharma alleging tampering of EVMs.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the battery of EVM Machine showed charging at 99% and few EVM Machines battery showed charging at 80% during the election process. It was further alleged that after full day of running, EVM Machine could not have a battery percentage of 99%. It was further submitted that the respondent in connivance with State Machinery had access to the battery. Thus, it was contended that the respondent had adopted corrupt practice and had tampered the EVM Machines.

Countering the arguments advanced by the petitioner, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was required to plead particulars as per Section 83 (Contents of Petition) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The counsel further contended that the election petition did not mention full material particulars of corrupt practices. Instead, only general allegations have been made.

Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner submitted Section 86 grants power of dismissal of election petition only for non-compliance of Section 81 (Presentation of petitions), 82 (Parties to the petition) and 117 (Security for costs) and Section 83 is not included in Section 86 (Trial of election petitions), therefore, election petition cannot be dismissed on ground that full material particulars of any corrupt practice were not been pleaded.

It was further contended that batteries of EVM Machines cannot be charged during election process as EVM Machines are sealed and no one has access to EVM Machine component or battery.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that no particular allegations of corrupt practice have been made against any particular person, who was having access to EVM Machine. Further, the Court opined that the allegations were general in nature and the pleadings lacked the particulars of corrupt practices. The Court also noted that the oral contention that EVM Machines are sealed and no one has access to it was also missing in the pleadings made in the election petition.

On perusal of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Court noted that election petition is to be presented in accordance with Section 81. The Court further noted that grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 (Grounds for declaring election to be void) and Section 101 (Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected) are to be mentioned at the time of presentation of petition.

The Court said that while mentioning the grounds, full material particulars of the grounds mentioned in election petition for declaring election to be void has to be mentioned.

“Petitioner has not mentioned material particulars who was having access to EVM Machines. How State Machinery is involved with respondent is also not mentioned. There is no whisper of any act on part of State Machinery in tandem with respondent which affected the result. There is no whisper that EVM cannot be charged during the election process. It is also not mentioned that EVM Machines are sealed. It is found that petitioner failed to mention full particulars required for making of the case under Section 100 and 101. Said particulars cannot be supplied at the time of pleadings.”, the Court observed.

Thus, the Court held that Sections 81, 83 and 100 are to be read together and non-compliance of Section 83 and 100 would lead to dismissal of petition under Section 86.

The election petition was hence, dismissed.

Case Title: P C Shamra (Prakash Mangilal Sharma) Versus Shri Bhagwandas Sahbnani, Election Petition No. 15 Of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 89