Justice Sandeep Marne, Bombay High Court.
The Bombay High Court on Monday ruled an election cannot be declared void under the Representation of the People Act of 1951 (RP Act) solely because the candidate added a column in the election affidavit to disclose his second marriage [Sudhir Brijendra Jain v Rajendra Dhedya Gavit]
The Court was dealing with a petition challenging Palghar Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rajendra Gavit’s win in the 2024 assembly elections.
Sudhir Brijendra Jain, a voter and social activist from the 130-Palghar Assembly Constituency, had alleged that Gavit’s declaration in Form 26, naming Rupali Gavit as his “Spouse No. 2” was false because the marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits bigamy.
He argued that such declaration amounted to ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123(4) and warranted setting aside of the election under Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act. Jain said the declaration was made to exert undue influence on Scheduled Tribe (ST) voters in the reserved constituency since Rupali Gavit belongs to the local tribal community.
Justice Sandeep Marne, however, ruled that mere addition of a column for such declaration would not be a ground for challenging the election. The single-judge also rejected the allegation that the declaration of the second marriage was false.
“In order to make out a ground of making false statement in the nomination form, it was necessary for the Petitioner to aver in the petition that marriage between Respondent and Smt. Rupali Gavit has never occurred. Far from making such averment in the petition, the Petitioner infact admits the fact in para-10(d) of the Election Petition that Smt. Rupali Gavit is the second wife of the Respondent,” it said
Rather, non- disclosure of such details would have attracted one of the grounds for maintaining a valid Election Petition under Section 100 of the Act, the Court said.
It also said there was no violation of Election Rules in true disclosure of details of PAN and status of Income Tax Returns of the second spouse.
The Court also referred to cases where a candidate, belonging to particular religion, in which polygamy is not prohibited, has contracted multiple marriages.
“If contention of Petitioner about impermissibility to add column in Form 26 Affidavit is accepted, such candidate would never be able to contest any election as disclosure of information about additional wife would attract ground under Section 100 of the Act,” the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application filed by Gavit seeking dismissal of the election petition.
Senior Advocate Neeta Karnik, with advocates Jimmy Mates Gonsalves, Shrirang P Katneshwarkar, Kallies Albert Alphanso and Sandeep Gupta, instructed by Anthony Floriyen Foss appeared for Jain.
Advocate Nitin Gangal with advocates Chandrakant Y Tanawde, Namita Mestry, Prapti Karkera, Diksha Patil, Pramod B Jedhe, Naresh B Patil, Milind Choudhari appeared for Gavit.
