Disclosure of second marriage no ground for questioning validity of MLA's election: HC

Hindustan Times

6 hours ago

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday rejected a petition challenging Shiv Sena MLA Rajendra Gavit's election from the Palghar assembly constituency on the grounds that he had violated rules by disclosing he had a second wife while filling his nomination form. Palghar, India - April 25, 2019: The Shiv Sena candidate Rajendra Gavit in Palghar district , India, on Thursday, April 25, 2019. (Photo by Satish Bate/Hindustan Times) (Satish Bate/HT Photo)
A single-judge bench of justice Sandeep Marne ruled that the petition failed to show how Gavit's voluntary disclosure about his second marriage materially affected the election result. The bench added that the Shiv Sena leader had candidly and honestly disclosed the information relating to his second marriage, which could not be a ground for challenging his election.
Sudhir Brijendra Jain, a social activist, had filed an election petition in the high court, claiming that Gavit's win in last year's Maharashtra assembly polls was void because the Shiv Sena leader disclosed he had a second wife in his poll affidavit. Jain argued that under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a second marriage, while the first is still legally valid, is illegal.
Jain also contended that Gavit had violated the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, by tinkering with the format of the nomination form to add details about his second marriage. 'There is no provision for making any declaration of a second spouse. Therefore, the additional column in respect of the second spouse is in violation of the election rules,' he said.
Subsequently, the court issued a summons to Gavit in January. The 57-year-old filed an application seeking the petition to be rejected, stating that merely adding a column in the form for making correct disclosures cannot be a ground for seeking the declaration of his election as void. 'There is no prohibition or restriction on any candidate from making any voluntary disclosure of information,' he added.
Submitting that the declaration of a second marriage had not materially affected the election in any manner, Gavit's lawyer, advocate Nitin Gangal, urged the court to reject the petition. He also informed the court that Gavit belongs to the tribal Bhil community, which does not come under the mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act. The tribe also does not prohibit a second marriage, he claimed. 'In fact, there is a custom of polygamy in the Bhil community,' Gangal added.
On this point, Jain's lawyer, senior advocate Neeta Karnik, argued that Gavit had declared his second marriage deliberately to influence voters from his community. 'The [Palghar] constituency was reserved for the ST (Scheduled Tribe) community and Mr Rajendra Gavit has largely benefited on account of this disclosure from local tribal voters,' she said.
However, the court upheld Gavit's election, observing that the addition of a column in the form, which deals with details such as PAN and the status of filing income tax returns by the candidate, their spouse, their family and dependents, would neither render the nomination form defective nor amount to a violation of the provisions of the Election Rules.
'There may be cases where a candidate belonging to a particular religion, in which polygamy is not prohibited, has contracted multiple marriages. If the contention of the petitioner about impermissibility to add a column is accepted, such a candidate would never be able to contest any election,' the bench said.
It further noted that there is no material averment in the memo of the petition to demonstrate falsity in Gavit's declaration. It held that the contention raised by Jain about the impermissibility to have a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is 'purely inferential' and does not constitute making a false statement by the candidate in the nomination form.