The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the election of AIMIM's Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique from the Malegaon Central Assembly constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, upholding the Bombay High Court judgment which rejected the election petition filed by his rival Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid.

The Bombay High Court had held that performing 'Dua' for a candidate's electoral victory during a political congregation, with the audience responding 'Amen', did not amount to soliciting votes on religious grounds or constitute a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the appeal filed by Samajwadi Party candidate Shaan E Hind Nihal Ahmed.

The election dispute arose after Mufti Ismail was declared elected from Malegaon Central. He secured 1,09,653 votes, while his nearest rival Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid secured 1,09,491 votes, resulting in a margin of 162 votes. Ahmed, who contested the election on a Samajwadi Party ticket, secured 9,624 votes.

Rashid, who contested the election on the Indian Secular Largest Assembly of Maharashtra (ISLAM) ticket, challenged the election before the Bombay High Court, alleging that Mufti Ismail had indulged in corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, during the election campaign.

One of the allegations concerned Mufti Ismail performing Dua during political meetings and congregational prayers for his electoral victory. The audience would respond with "Amen". Rashid argued that this amounted to soliciting votes in the name of religion and that the response of the audience amounted to a pledge to vote for Mufti Ismail, who is also the Imam of Jame Masjid in Malegaon.

The High Court rejected this contention holding that while saying "Amen" could mean agreeing with or seconding the prayer for Mufti Ismail's electoral success, it was materially different from making a pledge, which involved a formal promise or undertaking.

The Court held that praying for electoral success neither amounted to soliciting votes on the ground of the candidate's religion nor amounted to undue influence. It also held that the election petition lacked the material facts necessary to establish the alleged corrupt practice.

Rashid also alleged that Mufti Ismail and his campaigners had sought to exploit the religious sentiments of Muslim voters through speeches made during the election campaign.

In relation to party worker Sufi Anees Quadri's speech, in which he had said that it was shameful to seek votes from Muslims when the candidate was an Imam, the Court held that Quadri was appealing to the emotions of the gathering but had not solicited votes on the ground of Mufti Ismail's religion.

The Court also considered AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi's remarks concerning women candidates and his alleged comparison of Rashid to Yazid. The Court held that the speeches had to be understood in the context of accusations and counter-accusations made during an election campaign. The Court therefore rejected the contention that these remarks constituted corrupt practice.

Rashid had further objected to religious organisations including Jamiyat-e-Ulma and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind supporting Mufti Ismail's candidature. The High Court held that reference to religion in political discourse was not completely prohibited and religious organisations were not absolutely barred from participating in the electoral process. It held that the support extended by these organisations did not amount to a corrupt practice.

The election petition also raised the issue of pamphlets allegedly circulated by Mufti Ismail's sister Rafea Khalique. Rashid alleged that the pamphlets asked people not to vote for women candidates and prescribed how a Muslim woman should behave and dress.

The Court observed that the religious beliefs propagated through the pamphlet could legitimately be criticised and such misogynistic views had no place in a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law.

However, the Court held that the pamphlet did not refer to any particular candidate and consisted of general statements concerning the perceived role of women according to religious tenets. It therefore did not fall within Section 123(3) or Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.

The High Court consequently rejected Rashid's election petition and upheld Mufti Ismail's election.

The Supreme Court has now dismissed Ahmed's challenge to that judgment, leaving Mufti Ismail's election from Malegaon Central undisturbed.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner.

Case no. – C.A. No. 13121/2026, Diary No. 41176/2026

Case Title – Shaan E Hind Nihal Ahmed v. Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul