HC upholds BJP MLA's victory, says ‘honest' disclosure of second marriage won't flout rules

Indian Express

6 hours ago

Dismissing a plea against election of BJP MLA Rajendra Gavit for Palghar (ST) constituency in 2024 Assembly polls, the Bombay High Court on Monday, observed that his 'honest and candid' disclosure about his second marriage, which is permissible in his community, would not flout election rules.
The HC passed an order on a petition filed by one Sudhir Brijendra Jain, a social activist from Palghar seeking a declaration that Gavit's election was void based on his declaration in Form number- 26 filed along with his nomination naming one Rupali Gavit as his 'spouse No. 2' was false.
Jain had claimed that Gavit's marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits bigamy.
Gavit, a member of the Tribal Bhil community, had contended that the custom of polygamy exists in the said community and second marriage is permissible.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne noted that 'there may be cases where a candidate belonging to a particular religion, in which polygamy is not prohibited, has contracted multiple marriages.'
Jain had claimed that Gavit's declaration amounted to 'corrupt practice' and his election was set aside under provision of Representation of People Act, 1951.
He alleged that the declaration was made to exert undue influence on Scheduled Tribes (ST) voters in the constituency since Rupali belonged to the local tribal community.
Justice Marne noted that the petitioner failed to establish that any statement made by Gavit in his affidavit in Form 26 and disclosure of second marriage by adding a column in Form-26 is false.
The HC added that there were 'no pleadings (in the plea) to establish undue influence on voters with their free exercise of electoral right on account of respondent Rajendra Gavit disclosing his second marriage with Smt. Rupali Gavit.'
The Court observed, 'On the contrary, Respondent (Rajendra Gavit) has candidly and honestly disclosed information relating to his second marriage with Smt. Rupali Gavit. In my view, therefore Petitioner has failed to disclose real cause of action for challenging the election of the Respondent,' the HC noted.
'In my view, therefore, mere addition of a column in Form 26 Affidavit would not attract a ground for challenging the election. Thus, no ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) or (iv) of 1951 Act is made out in the pleadings raised in the election petition, warranting its dismissal,' Justice Marne held.