Bombay High Court
Sneha Dube Pandit Alias Sneha Premnath … vs Vijay Govind Patil on 7 August, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:12896
AEP(L)7709-2025f
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPLICATION (L) NO.7709 OF 2025
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO.2 OF 2025
Sneha Dube Pandit
@ Smt. Sneha Premnath Dube
Age 38 years, 60A/003, Mangalvandan
Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
Evershine City, Navghar, Manikpur,
Vasai, Palghar, Maharashtra-401202 ... Applicant
In the matter of between:
Vijay Govind Patil
Age 75 years,
Yashovardhan Bunglow,
At post Sasunavghar, NH-8, Vasai East,
Taluka Vasai, District Palghar-401208 ... Petitioner
Versus
Sneha Dube Pandit
@ Smt. Sneha Premnath Dube
Age 38 years, 60A/003, Mangalvandan
Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
Evershine City, Navghar, Manikpur,
Vasai, Palghar, Maharashtra-401202 ... Respondent
----------
Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w. Sahen Pradhan a/w. Ms.Sonal Dabholkar for the
Applicant-Original Respondent.
Ms. Neeta P. Karnik, Senior Advocate i/by Ms.Jovika Jimmy Gonsalves and
Mr.Jimmy Mates Gonsalves, Mr. Shrirana P. Katneshwarkar and Mr. Anthony
Floriyen for the Respondent-Original Petitioner.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : June 27, 2025
Pronounced on : August 07, 2025
sa_mandawgad 1 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
ORDER :
1. The present Interim Application has been preferred by the
Returned Candidate whose election is called in question by the
Election Petition, seeking dismissal of the Election Petition for non-
disclosure of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The Election Petition seeks declaration that the election of the
Applicant to the General Election 2024 to the State Assembly from
133-Vasai Assembly Constituency be declared to be void under
Sections 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (for short, “R.P. Act, 1971“). The Petition is premised
on the ground that the Applicant has published statement of fact
which is false with regard to the name of the Applicant and
incomplete information in respect of the educational qualification of
the Applicant.
3. The election of the Applicant is called in question on two
grounds firstly that the Applicant has submitted incomplete
information about her educational qualifications by stating only her
highest educational qualification and there is improper acceptance of
the Nomination and secondly that the Applicant with the connivance
of the Returning Officer got her name published as “Sneha Dube
sa_mandawgad 2 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
Pandit” which was not supported by any document and the name was
changed in order to mislead the voters and take advantage of
surname “Pandit” of one “Vivek Pandit” of Shramjivi Sanghatana, an
influential name in the relevant constituency as Vivek Pandit is socially
and politically active and in order to appeal to the voters in name of
religion.
4. Before proceedings further, it would apposite to refer to the
relevant pleadings in the Petition. In so far as the ground of
submitting incomplete educational information is concerned, though
during the hearing of the Application, submissions were canvassed in
support of the said ground, the written submissions tendered are
confined to change of name of the Applicant from “Sneha Premnath
Dube” to “Sneha Dube Pandit”. In any event, as substantial arguments
were advanced on both the points, I have dealt with the same.
RELEVANT PLEADINGS IN THE PETITION:
5. As far as incomplete educational information is concerned, the
relevant pleading can be found in paragraph 5, 6 and 10 of the
Petition. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the plaint, it is pleaded that the
Applicant contested the election and on 29 th October, 2024 filed her
nomination in Form 2-B and Affidavit in Form 26 alongwith documents
with the Returning Officer mentioning her name as “Sneha Premnath
sa_mandawgad 3 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
Dube”. The Applicant in her Affidavit in Form 26 has mentioned her
highest educational qualification which constitutes an incomplete
nomination form which was accepted by the Returning Officer. In
paragraph 10, it is pleaded that the action of the Returning Officer in
accepting the incomplete Affidavit and in turn incomplete nomination
form is illegal, against provisions of law and amounts to corrupt
practice under Section 123(4) of the R.P. Act, 1971.
6. As regards the allegation of change of the name from “Sneha
Premnath Dube” to “Sneha Dube Pandit” is concerned, the relevant
pleadings can be found in paragraph 7, 8, and 9 of the Petition. In
paragraph 7, it is pleaded that on 29 th October, 2024, the Applicant
filed an Application with the Returning Officer requesting her name
on the ballot paper to be printed as “Sneha Dube Pandit”, which was
accepted by the Returning Officer. The Applicant has tried to take dis-
advantage of the name “Pandit” which is very influential surname in
the Vasai Assembly Constituency as one Sharamajivi Sanghatana of
“Vivek Pandit” is very much socially and politically active and use of
name “Pandit” on ballot paper is to mislead the voters. It is pleaded
that the Applicant has no legal right to use “Pandit” alongwith “Dube”
and use of the surname “Pandit” amounts to corrupt practices. It is
pleaded that the Returning Officer has acted in connivance with the
Applicant under the undue influence of the Applicant and the result of
sa_mandawgad 4 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been
materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination of the
Applicant. It is further pleaded that the Applicant by using the name
of “Sneha Dube Pandit” has made an attempt to appeal to vote on the
ground of community prejudicially affecting the election of the
Respondent.
7. In paragraph 9, it is pleaded that upon a written application of
the Petitioner’s Advocate to the Returning Officer, there is no legal
document supplied in respect of the Applicant’s name as “Sneha Dube
Pandit”. The Applicant has no right to use the name “Sneha Dube
Pandit” on the ballot papers and the Applicant has obtained
assistance of the Returning Officer for furtherance of the prospects
of the Applicant.
PLEADINGS IN THE INTERIM APPLICATION:
8. The Application pleads that no cause of action has arisen under
Section 123(4) and no grounds under Section 100 of RP Act read with
Article 173 of the Constitution of India are made out by the
Respondent in the Election Petition. It is pleaded that as far as the
educational qualification is concerned, in Form No.26, the Applicant
has mentioned her highest educational qualification which was the
requirement in Part A, Clause 10 of Form 26. It is pleaded that non-
sa_mandawgad 5 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
disclosure of educational qualification of matriculation and higher
secondary certificate cannot constitute corrupt practice under Section
123(4) of RP Act.
9. As regards the use of the name of “Sneha Dube Pandit’ on the
ballot papers, it is pleaded that Vivek Pandit from Shramjivi Sanghatna
is the Applicant’s father and the Applicant was the working President
of the Sanghatna on 21st March, 2022. It is pleaded that as per the
Rules alongwith the nomination form, every candidate is required to
submit additional information at the time of nomination by filling a
form listed in list of documents annexed at Exhibit “A” and in this form
in Clause IV, the candidate is asked to fill in the name ‘he/she’ wants to
be printed on the ballot papers. It is pleaded that the necessary
application was filed by the Applicant requesting that the name on
the ballot papers to be printed as “Sneha Dube Pandit” which is the
married and maiden surname alongwith her name. It is pleaded that
the Petitioner has suppressed the form of “additional information
from candidates at the time of nomination”. It is further pleaded that
the Respondent is aware that the Applicant is daughter of Vivek
Pandit and despite thereof has made baseless allegation to create
unnecessary cause of action.
sa_mandawgad 6 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
REPLY TO INTERIM APPLICATION:
10. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is pleaded that the averments in the
Petition discloses the cause of action and material facts have been set
out in support of the allegations. It is pleaded that it was necessary
for the Applicant to disclose all material information in respect of her
complete educational qualification and disclosing of last educational
qualification amounts to corrupt practice. It is further pleaded that
every document produced by the Applicant is in the name of “Sneha
Premnath Dube” and not a single document shows her name as
“Sneha Dube Pandit” and by use of the surname Pandit alongwith
Dube influenced the minds of the voter by reason of which the results
of returned candidate is materially affected. It is contended that the
use of the surname “Pandit” on the ballot papers at the instance of
Returning Officer amounts to a corrupt practice. It is contended that
for use of maiden name, the Applicant was required to make an
application for correction of her name and to publish a change of
name in the Government Gazette and publish a public notice which
has not been done and the use of the maiden name is only for purpose
of influencing the minds of voters and the election of the Applicant
who is returned candidate has been materially affected by the use of
her maiden name on the ballot papers.
sa_mandawgad 7 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
SUBMISSIONS:
11. Mr. Nitin Pradhan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Applicant has taken this Court through the relevant statutory
provisions and the pleadings in the petition. He submits that the
petition seeks declaration of the election as void on two grounds,
firstly, as the Applicant has failed to submit all her educational
qualification required to be furnished at Part A Clause 10 and secondly
that the use of name as “Sneha Dube Pandit” on ballot papers was an
attempt to get the votes of Shramjivi Sanghatana of Vivek Pandit.
12. As far as the first ground is concerned, he points out to Affidavit
in Form 26, filed by the Applicant and annexed to the plaint
Respondent and would submit that the prescribed format requires
mentioning of the highest educational qualification only and as such
the said ground does not disclose cause of action for questioning the
election.
13. As far as second ground is concerned, he points out that the
concise statement of facts annexed to the Petition and submits that
Section 123(4) is required to be read conjointly with Section 100 (1)(c)
and (d) which contemplates that the result of the election, as far as
returned candidate is concerned, has been materially affected. He
submits that neither in the relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
sa_mandawgad 8 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
Petition nor in the concise statement of facts, the Respondent has
claimed that the alleged corrupt practice by returned candidate has
materially affected the result of the election.
14. He would submit that the opportunity of making change in the
name is given to the candidate as per Rule 8 of the Conduct of
Elections Rules, 1961, if the candidate’s name is different from the
name by which he is popularly known. He would point out Page 120 of
the plaint which is the Applicant’s application made on 29 th October,
2024 requesting the Returning Officer to print her name as “Sneha
Dube Pandit” on the ballot papers. He submits that there is no false
statement made as the Applicant’s maiden surname was “Pandit” as
she is the daughter of Vivek Pandit of Shramjivi Sanghatna. He
submits that Section 36 of R.P. Act, 1971 deals with the scrutiny of
nominations and no objection was raised by the Respondent at that
stage. He submits that the use of the maiden name does not satisfy
the ingredients of Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971 and there is no
corrupt practice by use of maiden name. In support, he relies on the
following decisions:
(ii) Samar Singh vs. Kedar Nath alias K.N.Singh and Ors.2
(iii) U.S.Sasidharan vs. K. Karunakaran and Anr.3
1 (2020) 7 SCC 366
2 1987 (Supp) SCC 663
3 (1989) 4 SCC 482sa_mandawgad 9 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
(vi) Anil Yeshwant Desai vs. Mahendra Tulshiram Bhingardive6
15. Per contra, Ms. Karnik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent submits that at the time of submission of her nomination
paper alongwith the Affidavit, the Applicant had stated on oath that
her name is “Sneha Premnath Dube” and on same day called upon the
Returning Officer to change her name on ballot paper to “Sneha Dube
Pandit” which is impermissible. She submits that without verifying the
genuineness of the request, the Returning Officer allowed the
application. She submits that the Affidavit filed at at the time of
delivering the nomination is sworn as per Rule 4A of Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961, however, the change in name is permitted
without any affirmation or oath in breach of provisions of Rule 4A. She
submits that She submits that Section 33(4) requires the name on
nomination to be as per the electoral roll which is therefore
significant and entitles the voter to contest the election. She submits
that change of name by the Applicant does not fit in the exceptions
carved out in the proviso to Section 33(4) of the R.P. Act, 1971 and
constitutes breach of Section 33(4) and the Rules resulting in
improper acceptance of nomination form giving rise to cause of action
4 1994 Supp (2) SCC 746
5 1994 Supp (2) SCC 446
6 Decision of this Court in AEP(Ld) No.29382 of 2024
sa_mandawgad 10 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of R.P. Act, 1971.
16. She submits that Section 123(2) of R.P. Act, 1971 refers to
undue influence and by change of name, undue influence is created.
Rule 8 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 lays emphasis on the
form and spelling and the said Rule cannot override Section 33 of RP
Act.
17. She would further submit that by using the surname “Pandit,
the Applicant has made an appeal to gain votes from specific
community and followers of Shramjivi Sanghatna for furtherance of
her election prospects and for prejudicially affecting the election of
other candidates. She would point out that under Section 36(2)(b) of
RP Act, the Returning Officer is entitled to reject the nomination,
where there is failure to comply with the provisions of Section 33 of
R.P. Act, 1971 and therefore should have rejected the nomination
paper as the name of the Applicant in the electoral roll appears as
“Sneha Premnath Dube” and not as “Sneha Dube Pandit”. She submits
that the acceptance of the nomination by the Returning Officer
amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971.
18. She would further submit that the provisions of Section 79(b)
defines a candidate to mean a person who claims to have been duly
nominated as a candidate at any election which is linked to Section
sa_mandawgad 11 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
123(4) and where any statement of fact which is false in relation to
the personal character or conduct of any candidate is made with an
intention to prejudice the prospects of that candidate’s election
would mean even the false statement made by the candidate in
respect of his own personal character or conduct. She submits that
material facts with necessary particulars seeking election to be
declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of R.P. Act, 1971 are
set out in Ground (b) of the Petition.
19. She submits that the Respondent filed her nomination form by
providing false name, thereby causing improper acceptance of the
nomination form and subsequently adopted a false name to prejudice
the prospect of other candidates.
20. She would further submit that as far as the incomplete
information as regards the educational qualification is concerned,
Part A is different from Part B. She would further point out to the
handbook of Returning Officer and would submit that Clause 5.11D
pertaining to the preliminary examination of nomination paper is
restricted to entries relating to name and electoral roll details as
given in the nomination papers and to reject incomplete nominations.
She would further submit that the grounds for rejecting nomination
papers are set out in Clause 6.10, which provides for rejection that the
sa_mandawgad 12 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
oath or affirmation is not made by the candidate as required under
the Constitution of India. She would submit that Clause 6.13 which
deals with the correction in the name of the candidate provides that
the correction can be made only when the name incorrectly spelled or
incorrectly shown in the nomination form which are required to be
rectified before the list of candidates is prepared.
21. Drawing attention to the pleadings in the Petition and the
grounds, she submits that the cause of action has been set out in the
Petition. She submits that for the purpose of continuing with the
maiden name after her marriage it was necessary for a gazette
notification to be published and in all the documents filed by the
Applicant the name “Sneha Premnath Dube” is reflected. She submits
that in the application at page 120, the Applicant does not say that
the change is for the reason that she is popularly known by the said
name. In support, she relies on the following decisions:
(i) Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. vs.
M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.7
(ii) Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs. Sukh Darshan Singh
and Ors.8
(v) Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant
7 (2004) 9 SCC 512
8 (2004) 11 SCC 196
9 (2007) 3 SCC 617
10 (2015) 1 SCC 129sa_mandawgad 13 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025fand Ors.11
(vi) Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. Peddireddigari
Ramchandra Reddy and Ors.12
(vii) Union of India vs. Association for Democratic
Reforms and Anr.13
(viii) Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. vs.
Union of India and Anr.14
(ix) Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India
and Anr.15
(x) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil vs. K. Madan Mohan
Rao and Ors.16
(xii) Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs.
Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh18
(xiii) Aruj Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal and Ors.19
(xiv) Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy vs. Vemireddy
Pattabhirami Reddy and Ors.20
(xv) Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar and Ors.21
(xvi) Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal22REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
22. Under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, the Court is empowered to
dismiss the suit at the threshold if the same does not disclose cause of
action. It is well settled that for the purpose of adjudication of an
11 (2014) 14 SCC 162
12 (2018) 14 SCC 1
13 (2002) 5 SCC 294
14 (2003) 4 SCC 399
15 (2014) 14 SCC 189
16 (2023) 18 SCC 231
17 (2013) 4 SCC 776
18 (2017) 2 SCC 487
19 (2020) 7 SCC 1
20 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1467
21 (2015) SCC OnLine SC 102
22 (2017) 5 SCC 345
sa_mandawgad 14 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is only the plaint
alongwith the documents which are germane and can be looked into.
23. Before dealing with the pleadings, it would be apposite to
briefly refer to the statutory provisions. The election can be called
into question on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-Section
(1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the R.P. Act, 1971. In the present
case, the election is questioned under Section 100 (1)(b), Section 100
(1)(d)(i), Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) R.P. Act, 1971 which reads as under:
“100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.–(1)
Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is
of opinion–
(a) …
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a
returned candidate or his election agent or by any other
person with the consent of a returned candidate or his
election agent; or
(c) …..
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a
returned candidate, has been materially affected–
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) .....
(iii) ....
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made
under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election
of the returned candidate to be void.
(2) ……
(a) ……
(b) ……
sa_mandawgad 15 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
(c) ......
(d) ......"
24. Section 100(1)(b) of R.P. Act, 1971 is referable to corrupt
practice governed by Section 123 of the R.P. Act, 1971. In the present
case, the corrupt practice is alleged under Section 123 (2), 123(3),
123(4) and 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971. Upon holistic reading of the
Petition, the allegation of corrupt practice can be succinctly
summarised as under:
Under Section 123(2) and Section 123(3):
(a) by use of the surname “Pandit” illegally, the
Applicant has attempted to take disadvantage of the
surname which is an politically and socially influential
surname in Vasai Assembly Constituency.
(b) an attempt has been made to mislead the
voters.
Under Section 123(4):
(c) There is false statement made regarding the
Applicant’s candidature by change of name to
prejudice prospect of other candidates and affect the
election.
Under Section 123(7):
(d) The Returning Officer has acted in connivance
with the Applicant and the Applicant has exerted
undue influence and the result of the election in so
far as it concerns the returned candidate has been
materially affected by improper acceptance of the
nomination of Respondent.
sa_mandawgad 16 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
25. Dealing first with the alleged corrupt practice under Section 124
(4) of R.P. Act, 1971, the pleading in paragraph 10 is that by providing
incomplete educational qualification, the nomination form was
incomplete and amounts to corrupt practice as contemplated under
Section 123(4) of R.P. Act, 1971, whereas in Ground (o), it is pleaded
that the use of name “Pandit” on ballot papers which is false amounts
to corrupt practice under Section 124(4) of R.P. Act, 1971.
26. Section 123 (4) of R.P. Act, 1971 reads as under:
“123. Corrupt practices.–The following shall be deemed to be
corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:–
(1) -----------
(2) -------------
(3) ----------
(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any
other person with the consent of a candidate or his election
agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he
either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in
relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate
or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any
candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to
prejudice the prospects of that candidate’s election.”
27. Plain reading of the above provision would indicate that for an
act to constitute a corrupt practice it is required that (a) there is
publication of statement of fact which is false or which the candidate
does not believe to be true and (b) in relation to character or conduct
of any candidate and (c) being calculated to prejudice the prospect of
sa_mandawgad 17 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
that candidate’s election. The publication of false statement of fact is
required to be in respect of any candidate with the intent to prejudice
the prospects of that candidate. The interpretation placed by Ms.
Karnik that the use of the expression “any candidate” would include
even the returned candidate in present case is misplaced as it
overlooks the expression “calculated to prejudice the prospect of that
candidate’s election” used in the said provision. The expression
“prejudice” conveys a negative impact and is therefore necessarily
referable to a candidate other than the candidate making the false
statement of fact. It is incomprehensible that a candidate would make
false statement of fact in order to prejudice his own prospects in the
election.
28. Assuming arguendo that the corrupt practice of false statement
of fact as regards character and conduct is applicable even to the
candidate making the false statement, the allegation of corrupt
practice under Section 123(4) is based on cause of action of furnishing
of incomplete educational qualification as set out in paragraph 10
read with Ground(a) of the Petition and for reason of change of name
as set out in Ground (o) of the Petition. The applicability of Section
123(4) of R.P. Act, 1971 to the facts of the present case is itself in
doubt. Section 123(4) mandates making of false statement as regards
character and conduct and neither the educational qualification of a
sa_mandawgad 18 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
candidate nor the change of name is referable to the person’s
character or conduct. As understood in common parlance “character”
and “conduct” refers to a persons nature or behaviour.
29. That apart, upon perusal of format of Affidavit in Form 26 as
prescribed under The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Part A Clause
10 is as under:
“(10) My educational qualification is as under:-
……………….
(Give details of highest School/University education
mentioning the full form of the certificate/diploma/degree
course, name of the School/College/University and the year in
which the course was completed.)”
30. The Applicant was therefore required to give details of her
highest educational qualification, which she has given in accordance
with the prescribed format. The cause of action to declare the
election void based on incomplete educational qualification and thus
improper acceptance of nomination form is thus an illusory cause of
action and there is no corrupt practice on part of the returned
candidate under Section 123(4) of R.P. Act, 1971 which will warrant
the suit to proceed to full trial. It also needs to be noted that under
Section 36(4) of R.P. Act, 1971, the nomination form is to be rejected
on ground of defect of substantial character. The non mentioning of
all the educational qualifications as the highest qualification set out in
sa_mandawgad 19 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
the form is an indicator of the educational qualifications possessed by
the Applicant. or use of maiden family name alongwith married name
cannot form a defect of substantial character necessitating rejection
of nomination papers. The purpose of giving all details is to make
available the true information of the contesting candidate to the
voters, so that they can make an informed choice, which information
has been set out in the nomination form.
31. Coming next to the ground of corrupt practice alleged under
Section 123(2) and Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971, Section 123(2)
provides that an undue influence that is to say any direct or indirect
interference on part of candidate with the free exercise of electoral
right constitutes a corrupt practice. Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971
provides that the appeal by a candidate to vote or refrain from voting
for any person on ground of religion, race, caste, community or
language for furtherance of the prospects of the election of that
candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate is
corrupt practice.
32. Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1971 provides that an election
petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which
the Petitioner relies and shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt
practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as
sa_mandawgad 20 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such
corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each
such practice. It is well settled that Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971 is
mandatory and requires the election petition to contain first a concise
statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible
particulars. The material facts will show the ground of corrupt practice
and the complete cause of action and the particulars will give the
necessary information to present a full picture of cause of action.
Facts which are essential to disclose a complete cause of action are
material facts and are essentially required to be pleaded and
particulars are details of the case set up by the party and are such
pleas which are necessary to amplify, refine or explain material facts.
The material facts on which the party relies for his claim must be
stated in the pleadings. The Petitioner has cited multiple authorities in
support of the above proposition and it is not necessary to burden the
order by dealing with all the authorities laying the same proposition
of law. What is significant is the application of the settled law to the
facts of each case. (See Sardar Haracharan Singh Brar vs. Sukh
Darshan Singh and Others, Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh,
Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. Peddireddigari Ramachandra
Reddy, Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India & Anr, G.M.
Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs.
sa_mandawgad 21 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors (supra).
33. Applying the well settled law to the facts of the present case,
the averments in the Petition will have to be scrutinised to ascertain
whether the material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practice
is pleaded. The written submissions refers to Section 123(2) of R.P.
Act, 1971, whereas in Ground (c) refers to corrupt practice under
Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971.The pleading in the Petition is that the
Applicant has tried to take advantage of the surname “Pandit” to
mislead the voters as one “Vivek Pandit” of Shramjivi Sanghtana is
socially and politically influential name in the relevant constituency
and to appeal on ground of community. This is the only pleading in the
Petition to allege the corrupt practice under Section 123(2) and
Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971 and nothing further. What is required
by Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971 is to set out concise statement of
material facts and to give full particulars. It is not sufficient to make
bald assertions in the Petition that the Applicant has taken
disadvantage of the surname “Pandit” without pleading about the
manner in which the Respondent attempted to exploit the surname
“Pandit” during the election process which amounts to corrupt
practice. There is not even a bare averment that there was an appeal
by the Respondent to the voters to vote in her favour by exploiting
the surname “Pandit” or of “Vivek Pandit” or “Sharmjivi Sanghtana”
sa_mandawgad 22 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
much less any particulars of the alleged corrupt practice of misleading
the voters or appealing for votes on ground of race, caste, community
or religion. It is not sufficient to make a bald assertion in the Petition
that the Respondent tried to take advantage of change of name
without setting out the material facts as to the manner in which the
changed name was used to gain votes by misleading voters or
appealing on ground of religion, caste, race etc so as to constitute
corrupt practice. The Petition is bereft of the material facts necessary
to constitute corrupt practice and there are no particulars i.e. the
location, place, date etc when the Respondent made an appeal for
vote by use of the surname “Pandit”, or “Shramjivi Sanghtana” or
“Vivek Pandit” and thus interfered with the free exercise of any
electoral right, mislead the voters or appealed on ground of race,
religion or caste. It is also not pleaded that the Respondent’s religion,
race or caste changed after marriage and the reversion to the
Respondent’s maiden name was to garner votes on ground by
appealing on ground of religion, caste etc. The pleadings in the
Petition are mere surmises and conjectures that by reason of change
of name an attempt was made to garner votes by exploiting the
changed name. The principles summarised in Krishnamoorthy Vs
Sivakumar & Ors (supra) cannot be debated and what is required is
the examination of facts of present case to ascertain whether the
sa_mandawgad 23 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
pleadings set out the material facts to infer corrupt practice under
Section 123 (2) or 123(3) of R.P. Act.
34. It is not debated that the Applicant filed the nomination form
as’ Sneha Premnath Dube on 29th October, 2024 and on the same day
in the prescribed form applied to the Returning Officer to print her
name on ballot paper as Sneha Dube Pandit. Rule 8 of the The
Conduct of Elections Rules,1961 provides that the list of validly
nominated candidate referred to in sub section (8) of Section 36 shall
be in Form No.4 and Rule 8(2) provides that the name of the candidate
shall be shown in the list as it appears in his nomination papers. The
proviso to Rule 8(2) provides that if a candidate considers that his
name is incorrectly spelled/incorrectly shown in the nomination paper
or is different from the name by which he is popularly known, he may
at any time before the list of contesting candidates is prepared,
furnish in writing to the Returning Officer the proper form and
spelling of his name and accordingly the Returning Officer shall make
the necessary correction in the list in Form No.4 and adopt that form
and spelling in list of contesting candidates. The Rule therefore
provides for correction of name in three situations firstly where the
name is incorrectly spelt, secondly where it is otherwise incorrectly
shown in his nomination paper and thirdly where his name is different
from the name by which he is popularly known. The Returning Officer
sa_mandawgad 24 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
on being satisfied on genuineness of the request may make the
necessary correction or alteration in the list in Form 4. The submission
of Ms. Karnik that what can be corrected is only form and spelling is by
reason of reading the proviso as restricted only to the first two
categories and overlooks the third category which refers to the
correction when the name of a candidate is different from the name
by which he is popularly known. The expression “form and spelling”
used in the proviso to Rule 8(2) cannot be given strict dictionary
meaning as the same would run contrary to the intention in providing
for third category of correction of name to a popularly known name
which correction may not be restricted only to form and spelling.
35. The proviso to Rule 8(2) permitting correction of a candidate’s
name when it differs from the popularly known name makes it
evident that in order to support such correction, there would not be
any legal document such as passport, educational documents etc to
support the popularly known name as all legal documents would
reflect the official name of the candidate. Though it is sought to be
contended that the application for change of the name does not
mention that the candidate is popularly known by “Sneha Dube
Pandit”, the application has been filed in prescribed format which
does not provide for furnishing of any other information except the
changed name.
sa_mandawgad 25 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
36. The Applicant has specifically pleaded that the Applicant’s
maiden family name was “Pandit”, which has not been disputed by the
Respondent and it is common to use the maiden family name
alongwith the married family name. There is no provision brought to
the notice of this Court that for use of maiden family name alongwith
the married family name, the publication in the Official Gazette or
publication of any notice is the mandatory requirement. The Applicant
has not changed her name to a completely different unconnected
family name which will require detailed examination.
37. The Returning Officer accepted the change of name, which
according to the Respondent amounts to corrupt practice under
Section 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971. The requirement of Section 123(7) of
R.P. Act, 1971 is obtaining of assistance for the furtherance of the
prospects of that candidate’s election. As discussed earlier, it was
necessary to plead the material facts and give full particulars of the
manner in which the Applicant exerted undue influence or connived
with the Returning Officer. It would have been a different aspect if
there was surreptitious change of name by the Returning Officer
without the Respondent being permitted to scrutinise the nomination
form. This is not the pleaded case of the Respondent. The pleading is
only that as the Returning Officer has acted in connivance with the
Applicant and the Applicant exerted undue influence, which is not
sa_mandawgad 26 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
sufficient to disclose cause of action under Section 123(7) of R.P. Act,
1971.
38. Section 100(1)(d)(i) provides for ground of challenge on
improper acceptance of nomination form if the result of election in so
far as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected.
The case of the Respondent hinges basically on the improper
acceptance of nomination form by accepting the change of name. As
Rule 8 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1971 itself provides for such
change in the name to be accepted by the Returning Officer, the
pleadings must disclose firstly that there is improper acceptance of
nomination form and secondly the manner in which the result of
election has been materially affected by such acceptance.
39. There is no pleading in the Petition that the change in the
Applicant’s name from Sneha Premnath Dube to Sneha Dube Pandit
has materially affected the result of the election in so far as the
returned candidate is concerned. The pleading which can be found in
paragraph 7 of the Petition is :
“The Petitioner states that the Returning Officer has acted in
connivance with the Respondent and so also the Respondent
exerted undue influence on the Returning Officer the result of
the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, has
been materially affected by the improper acceptance of
nomination of the Respondent.”
sa_mandawgad 27 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
The cause of action alleged is change of name and the material facts
was required to be pleaded to show how the change of name has
materially affected the result of the election. The sine qua non for
challenging the election under Section 100(1)(d) is that the result of
election in so far as the returned candidate is concerned has been
materially affected. In Karim Uddin Barbhuya vs Aminul Haque
Laskar23, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paragraph 22 to 24 as under:
“22. So far as the ground contained in clause (d) of Section
100(1) of the Act, with regard to improper acceptance of the
nomination of the Appellant is concerned, there is not a single
averment made in the Election Petition as to how the result of
the election, in so far as the appellant was concerned, was
materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination,
so as to constitute a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of
the Act. Though it is true that the Election Petitioner is not
required to state as to how corrupt practice had materially
affected the result of the election, nonetheless it is mandatory
to state when the clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) is invoked as to
how the result of election was materially affected by improper
acceptance of the nomination form of the Appellant.(Emphasis
supplied).
23. As transpiring from the Election Petition, the respondent
no. 1 himself had not raised any objection in writing against the
nomination filed by the Appellant, at the time of scrutiny made
by the Returning Officer under Section 36 of the Act. According
to him, he had raised oral objection with regard to the education
qualification stated by the Appellant in the Affidavit in Form-26.
If he could make oral objection, he could as well, have made
objection in writing against the acceptance of nomination of the
Appellant, and in that case the Returning Officer would have
decided his objection under sub-section (2) of Section 36, after
holding a summary inquiry. Even if it is accepted that he had
23 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509sa_mandawgad 28 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025fraised an oral objection with regard to the educational
qualification of the Appellant before the Returning Officer at
the time of scrutiny, the respondent no. 1 has failed to make
averment in the Election Petition as to how Appellant’s
nomination was liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer on
the grounds mentioned in Section 36(2) of the Act, so as to make
his case fall under clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) that there was
improper acceptance of the nomination of the Appellant. The
non-mentioning of the particulars as to how such improper
acceptance of nomination had materially affected the result of
the election, is apparent on the face of the Election Petition.
(Emphasis supplied).
24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings have
to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations
contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as
contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the
requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election
Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC.
An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete
cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of
material facts on which the Election petitioner relies for
establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election
Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of
the RP Act.”
40. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when clause (d)(i) of
Section 100 of R.P. Act, 1971 is invoked it is mandatory to state as to
how the result of election was materially affected by improper
acceptance of nomination form of the Appellant. Neither the concise
statement of facts appended to the Election Petition nor the
pleadings in the Petition pleads about the result of election being
materially affected by change of name much less set out the
particulars.
sa_mandawgad 29 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
41. In case of Subash Desai Vs Sharad J Rao (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that before the Court proceeds to investigate
allegations of corrupt practices, the Court must be satisfied that the
material facts have been stated alongwith the full particulars of the
corrupt practice alleged by the Petitioner and in cases where the
Court finds that neither material facts have been pleaded nor full
particulars of the corrupt practice as required by Section 83 have been
furnished in the election petition, the election petition can be
dismissed not under Section 86 of R.P. Act, 1971 but under provisions
of Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable, read with Section
83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1971 saying that it does not disclose a cause of
action.
42. The Petition does not plead any material facts to show the
manner in which the result of election has been materially affected. In
facts such as the present case, the material facts to be pleaded was
that the Applicant has exploited the surname “Pandit” and appealed
to voters to cast their votes in her favour and that by reason of change
of name, the voters cast their vote in favour of the Applicant who
otherwise would have voted in favour of the Respondent. Sans any
material pleadings, the Petition does not disclose any cause of action
to invoked Section 100 (1)(d) of R.P. Act, 1971.
sa_mandawgad 30 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
43. Section 33 of R.P. Act, 1971 deals with the presentation of
nomination paper and requirements for valid nomination. Thereafter
under Section 35 of R.P. Act, 1971, date time and place is fixed for
scrutiny of nomination papers and Section 36 of R.P. Act, 1971
provides for scrutiny of nominations and under Sub-Section (8) of
Section 36, after all nomination papers are scrutinised and decisions
accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded the list of validly
nominated candidates is prepared. Under Section 38 of R.P. Act, 1971,
after the expiry of period within which the candidatures may be
withdrawn the returning officer shall prepare and publish the list of
contesting candidate. The Applicant filed her application for change of
name on the same day of filing of nomination i.e. 29 th October, 2024.
The statutory provisions permit the scrutiny of nomination by the
candidates and no objection was taken by the Respondent which
could have been dealt with by the Returning Officer as provided under
Section 36(2) of R.P. Act, 1971. This is not to say that subsequently no
objection could be raised on ground of improper acceptance of
nomination form. In Kisan Shankar Kathore vs Arun Dattaray
Sawant (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the issue of
suppression of debts and assets in the nomination form. The
argument was that nomination could be rejected only if any of the
grounds under Section 36(2) was satisfied and the Hon’ble Apex Court
sa_mandawgad 31 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
held that it is not possible for Returning Officer to conduct a detailed
examination and ultimately if it is proved that it was case of non-
disclosure it can be held to be improper acceptance of nomination.
The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable as it was case of
suppression of assets which would warrant detailed examination.
44. In case of Jyoti Basu vs Debi Ghosal24, the Hon’ble Apex Court
considered the provisions of R.P. Act, 1971 to hold that right to elect,
fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough,
neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. Outside of
statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right
to dispute an election. An election proceeding to which neither the
common law not the principles of equity apply but only those rules
which the statute makes and applies.
45. There thus has to be strict compliance with the requirements of
the statutory provisions and the pleadings have to be specific, precise
and unambiguous as contemplated by Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971.
There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in Liverpool
& London S.P. & I Association Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.
(supra). In the present case what was required to be pleaded and to
disclose cause of action are full particulars of the corrupt practice and
pleadings as to how the improper acceptance of nomination form has
24 (1982) 1 SCC 691
sa_mandawgad 32 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
materially affected the result of election in so far as it concerns the
returned candidate. The Petition when read in a meaningful manner
does not disclose the cause of action required under Section 100(1)
(b), Section 100 (1) (d)(i) and Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act, 1971.
46. The pleadings in the Petition when read holistically does not set
out statement of fact disclosing cause of action for challenging the
election on ground of corrupt practice or improper acceptance of
nomination or non compliance with statutory provisions or
Constitution of India for the following reasons:
(a) As far as cause of action pertaining to incomplete
educational qualification is concerned, the Applicant has
mentioned her highest educational qualification in
accordance with the prescribed format of Affidavit in
Form 26.
(b) As far as change of name from “Sneha Premnath Dube” to
“Sneha Dube Pandit” is concerned, the Applicant has
adopted her maiden family name with her married family
name, which is not disputed by the Respondent and
therefore the Returning Officer cannot be held to have
acted in connivance with the Applicant. There cannot be
illegal adoption by a woman of her maiden family name.
(c) The proviso to Rule 8(2) of The Conduct of Election Rules,
1961 permits a candidate to correct his name if the
candidate considers that his name is different from the
name by which he is popularly known, which has been
done by the Applicant.
sa_mandawgad 33 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
(d) The Application for correction of name to be printed on
ballot paper was filed on the same day as filing of
nomination paper i.e. 29th October, 2024 and not
surreptitiously. There is no improper acceptance of the
nomination form.
(e) The Petition does not disclose that the acceptance of
change of name by adopting the maiden family name
alongwith married family name amounts to improper
acceptance of nomination form. There is no pleading as to
the manner in which the result of the election has been
materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of
the nomination form or change of name by the Applicant.
(f) The averments in the plaint when read holistically fails to
disclose a cause of action of corrupt practice under
Section 123(2), 123(3), 123(4) or 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971.
(g) Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971 requires that the Election
Petition must contain concise statement of material facts
and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice. In
absence of such facts and particulars being pleaded in the
Petition, the Petition is non compliant with Section 81 of
R.P. Act, 1971 and liable to be dismissed.
47. In light of the above discussion, in absence of disclosure of
cause of action, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. The Interim Application stands allowed.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
sa_mandawgad 34 of 34
Signed by: Sachin R. Patil
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/08/2025 20:53:43