Bombay High Court dismisses election petition against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Dina Patil

The Bombay HC (in the image) on Wednesday (November 27, 2024) dismissed an election petition that challenged the victory of Sanjay Dina Patil
| Photo Credit: VIVEK BENDRE

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) candidate, Sanjay Dina Patil, from Mumbai North-East constituency in the Parliamentary elections held this year. 

The petition filed by Shahaji Nanai Thorat, an independent candidate who is a taxi driver by profession, has alleged that the nomination of Mr. Patil was invalid as he failed to mention his mother’s name along with his father’s name in the nomination papers which was mandatory. The petitioner has sought to be declared as a validly elected candidate and that Mr. Patil should be replaced. The results of the Lok Sabha 2024 results were out on June 4, 2024.

Appearing in person, Mr. Thorat argued, “After noticing provisions of Section 82 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 (the Act) I have filed application seeking issuance of summons against 18 candidates, who also contested the election on account of failure to implead the contesting candidates under Section 82 of the Act and I seek issuance of summons to 18 contesting candidates.”

Mr. Thorat contended that there is clear ambiguity in Section 81, which requires filing of an election petition within a period of 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate ignoring the provisions of the Limitation Act. This does not explicitly require the impleadment of all contesting candidates within this timeframe. He claimed that this provision created an ambiguity that should not work to his disadvantage. Mr. Thorat initially sought to implead all contesting candidates but was advised by the court registry to exclude them and limit to impleading the returned candidate and official respondents in the petition, he alleged in his petition.

Mr. Patil won the Lok Sabha 2024 election by a margin of approximately 29,800 votes against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Mihir Kotecha.

Representing Mr. Patil, advocate Vijay Nair argued that the petition of Mr. Thorat was fundamentally flawed, and the failure to implead all the contesting candidates, a mandatory requirement under Section 82 of the Act, was a fundamental defect that cannot be remedied by subsequent applications or summons. 

“The petitioner’s application for summons only sought to notify the contesting candidates, not to formally implead them. The statutory limitation of 45 days from the date of election applies to all required elements of a valid petition, including impleadment on necessary parties. The failure to include all contesting candidates as parties to the case within this period rendered Mr. Thorat’s petition incurably defective. The petitioner has unnecessarily impleaded official respondents, including the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, who are not proper parties in election petitions under established legal precedents,” advocate Nair submitted.

Dismissing the petition, a Single-Bench judge, Justice Sandeep V. Marne who heard the petition on Tuesday [November 26, 2024], copy of which was issued late in the evening, observed that the petitioner, Shahaji Nanai Thorat, failed to implead all contesting candidates to his petition even though he was also sought the declaration of himself as the successful election candidate. The Lok Sabha 2024 election results were declared on June 4, 2024, but the petitioner only sought to add the other 18 contesting candidates as respondents in the petition on September 3, 2024, which is beyond the statutory period, that is, 45-days, the court noted.

“When the Petitioner, in addition to challenging the election of the returned candidate, seeks a declaration of his own election, the other contesting candidates must be given an opportunity to contest this claim. Even a single material defect in the Election Petition must lead to its dismissal, here the Election Petition filed by the petitioner does not comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 82 of the Act and on this ground alone, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed,” the court observed.