The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's plea seeking rejection of an election petition challenging his victory in the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections, while permitting him to raise all his legal objections during the trial before the High Court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard Baghel's challenge to the maintainability of the election petition filed by his BJP rival Vijay Baghel.

The election petition alleges that Bhupesh Baghel violated the 48-hour silence period before polling by conducting a roadshow, amounting to a violation of Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Appearing for Baghel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the allegation, even if accepted, disclosed only an electoral offence under Section 126 and not a "corrupt practice" under Section 123 of the Act.

"Section 126 is an electoral offence. It is not a corrupt practice. Corrupt practice is under Section 123," Sibal submitted.

He further contended that the allegations could not have materially affected the election result, pointing out that Baghel had won by a margin of about 20,000 votes.

"There is no question of affecting the result. Allegation is that there were 200 people but he won by 20,000 votes. I am raising a question of law that Section 126 is an electoral offence; it is not a corrupt practice. He was the Chief Minister, he had Z+ security. Those were the people who went with him," Sibal argued.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, observed that whether the alleged violation materially affected the election outcome was a question of fact that required evidence.

"You say the assembly was so small, but we feel that this is the question which needs to be decided on evidence because if I carry a message to one, it can be given to another. Is it a secret meeting of 200 or is it a public meeting of 200?" Justice Bagchi asked.

Sibal urged the Court to intervene at the threshold, arguing that Baghel should not be compelled to undergo a full-fledged trial when the allegations did not constitute a corrupt practice.

"Why should I go through trial when it is not a corrupt practice? It cannot materially affect; it is an electoral offence," he submitted.

Justice Bagchi responded that Baghel had "an arguable case to defend."

Declining to interfere, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea and clarified that Baghel would be at liberty to raise all his legal and factual contentions during the trial of the election petition before the High Court.

Background

The case concerns an election petition challenging the election of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel from the Patan Assembly constituency in the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections. BJP leader Vijay Baghel has alleged that Bhupesh Baghel violated the 48-hour "silence period" under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by organising a roadshow on November 16, 2023, a day before polling.

Bhupesh Baghel has denied the allegations and contends that the election petition is not maintainable. He has contended that the election petition lacks material facts and specific pleadings as to how the alleged act has materially affected the election process. He has further argued that pleadings in the Election Petition are vague and speculative and do not have any specific allegation to substantiate that the petitioner was involved in corrupt practices.

Further, he has claimed that the election petition is not accompanied by a valid affidavit as required under Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act, relies on electronic evidence without the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and does not implead all necessary parties.

The Chhattisgarh High Court had earlier rejected Bhupesh Baghel's plea seeking dismissal of the election petition. After the Supreme Court permitted him to raise the issue of maintainability before the High Court as a preliminary issue, he filed a fresh application seeking dismissal of the election petition at the threshold. On June 15, the High Court rejected that application and held that the election petition was maintainable. Bhupesh Baghel has challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Case: Bhupesh Baghel v. Vijay Baghel, SLP(C) No. 24440/2026