Bombay high court dismisses election petition against BJP legislator R Tamil Selvan
He won from the Sion-Koliwada constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. Selvan petitioned the HC for the dismissal of the petition filed by Ganesh Kumar Yadav, the Indian National Congress (INC) candidate who emerged with the second-highest votes.
Yadav earlier this year filed the election petition and, through his counsel Premlal Krishnan, challenged Selvan's election on grounds of non-compliance with certain rules and provisions, including those governing valid nominations under Section 33 of the Representation of People (RP) Act.
Justice Milind Jadhav, who pronounced the judgment on Tuesday, said, 'It is, however, prima facie seen that the Election Petition comprises vague and generic pleadings and there is a complete absence of material facts.' Krishnan argued that averments in the petition were enough to lay the foundation for the challenge. Justice Jadhav noted that Krishnan 'fairly argued that though what Petitioner will prove in evidence is not specifically in so many words stated in the Election Petition … Petitioner should be allowed to prove the same in trial.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Buy Resmed AirSense 11 with flat 20% off
ResMed
Buy Now
Undo
' Justice Jadhav, after hearing senior counsel Veerendra Tulzapurkar, who represented Selvan, said he did not subscribe to Krishnan's submission.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
|
Gold Rates Today in Mumbai
|
Silver Rates Today in Mumbai
The allegations, including 'non-disclosure' of an arbitration award in favour of the Railways, were of 'vague violations' by Selvan with no specific details whatsoever, the HC said, adding, 'Alleged omissions do not amount to non-compliance with provisions of Section 33 or Rule 4A so as to constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act.'
The HC said, 'It is seen that on scrutiny, the Returning Officer has not found any ambiguity or mistake, much less, non-disclosure or falsehood which can be deemed as suppression. It is in this context that when the Election Petitioner approaches the Court, he has to make a concise material statement of facts with all details in the Petition itself at the threshold. The Petitioner cannot improve his case in further pleadings, which is the attempt of Petitioner before me.
'
Once Selvan's nomination was held to be valid, it is deemed accepted and can only be rejected at the time of scrutiny. When the Returning Officer on scrutiny endorses each nomination, the nomination is considered valid, the HC held.
The HC agreed with Tulzapurkar's submissions seeking dismissal of the EP as it does not contain a concise statement of material facts as mandated under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC questions right of Jain organisations to seek closure of slaughterhouse for entire Paryushan Parv
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday questioned the right of organisations representing the Jain community to seek closure of slaughterhouses for the entire period of nearly 10 days of Paryushan, a prominent Jain festival. The court said there was no legislative mandate in law for such an order. The HC also issued notice to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the state government, seeking their response to pleas seeking closure of slaughterhouses for the entire festival. The court also said that it cannot stay the present BMC decision. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Sheth Bherulalji Kanaiyalalji Kothari Religious Trust and Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities and two other organisations. The petitioners had relied on the Supreme Court judgement of March 2008 in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat pertaining to Ahmedabad (Gujarat) that upheld the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close down slaughterhouses during Jain festival. Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the BMC, in its August 14 decision, did not consider that the Mumbai city has more Jain population than Ahmedabad. He submitted that BMC's order was exactly a 'copy-paste' version of last year's decision and it 'exhibits lack of application of mind and has been passed by taking into account the material which is not relevant for the purposes of the decision'. The petitioners also referred to Article 51A (g) of the Constitution related to fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures and argued the civic bodies should considered the same. The HC remarked that it could not direct the authority to close slaughterhouses for the entire Paryushan Parv as there was 'no legislative mandate' in law. The judges orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) are seeking a mandamus of 10-day closure. For that there has to be a mandate in law. You must have a right which could be enforced by court of law. Where does the law say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days? No stay can be granted (on BMC decision) because you are seeking writ of mandamus. Except for pointing out an error in BMC order , you have not made out a case for issuing mandamus.' The HC emphasised that the SC verdict was on a decision made by Ahmedabad civic body and not one imposed by judicial order of the court. The bench orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) will appreciate the difficulty (of the HC). In SC judgement, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had taken a decision (of closure), which was upheld by the court. But in this case, there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law that they must close (for all 10 days). Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.' Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar for another petitioner argued that the BMC had taken a decision despite there being a large number of vegetarian population in the city. He remarked it was easier 'to appeal and convince Mughal emperor Akbar' to prohibit slaughter in Gujarat (in his times as mentioned in SC verdict) but it was difficult to convince the BMC and state government. The HC allowed petitioners to amend the pleas to challenge BMC's August 14 order and posted the hearing after two weeks.
Deccan Herald
27 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Smart Meter tender probe against K J George: Karnataka High Court extends interim order
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday extended till August 28, the interim order of stay on the proceedings before the special court in a complaint against state energy minister K J George and officials of the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom). Justice M I Arun adjourned the hearing by a private complaint was filed by three BJP legislators against George, Mahantesh Bilagi, former Managing director of Bescom (presently MD of Karnataka State Minerals Development Corporation) and HJ Ramesh, Director (Technical), Bescom alleging irregularities in the issuance of a tender for procuring and installing smart electric meters across the petitioners have sought quashing of the private complaint before the special court for MPs/MLAs in a complaint filed on July 17, 2025. The petitioners further sought quashing of the order passed by the special court on July 23, directing the superintendent of police, Lokayukta, to file his report by the next hearing date under Section 175(4) of the polls: BRS will extend support to candidate who supplies urea to Telangana farmers, says KT Rama Rao .The complaint, filed by C N Ashwath Narayan (Malleshwaram MLA), S R Vishwanath (Yelahanka MLA) and D Muniraj (Doddaballapur MLA), alleged offences under sections 314, 316 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. The complaint alleged loss to the public exchequer in the tender proceedings for the procurement of smart meters. The complainants said this act of the accused persons has caused wrongful gain to the contractor – Rajashree Electricals.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Parliament panel seeks review of IT Act's ‘safe harbour', OTT watchdog
A Parliament panel has recommended the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) to review the safe harbour protections available to intermediaries, like social media companies who host user generated content, under the IT Act, especially where platforms fail to act on unlawful content. This is to strike a balance between their liability immunity and the need for greater accountability, said the committee. Proceedings of the Lok Sabha underway during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday. (Sansad TV) The recommendation was made in the 254th report of the parliamentary standing committee on home affairs, titled 'Cyber Crime - Ramifications, Protection and Prevention,' tabled in parliament on Wednesday. The 'safe harbour' protections, under Section 79 of the IT Act, exempts the intermediaries from liability for the actions of their users, as long as they adhere to guidelines prescribed by the government. The Committee urged MeitY, along with home and law ministries, to amend the IT Act to make social media platforms legally accountable if they ignore takedown orders. It suggested graded penalties, fines or even suspension for repeat violations, while ensuring due process and appeal rights to protect free speech. 'The Committee has observed that certain social media intermediaries at times fail to cooperate with law enforcement agencies and legal provisions in promptly removing unlawful content, including morphed videos, fake profiles, misinformation and content promoting violence based on religion or caste, thereby potentially abetting criminal activities and undermining public order,' said the committee. This comes as X (formerly Twitter) awaits judgment in its case against the centre, challenging the government's content takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and its use of the Sahyog Portal to issue content takedown notices. While Section 79 of the Act provides intermediaries with 'safe harbour', under part (3)(b), the intermediary can lose if it fails to remove the unlawful content after being notified by the government. The Sahyog portal enables the process of issuing takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), which X says circumvents Section 69A of the IT Act, which has the necessary safeguards for intermediaries. On over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hotstar, etc, the committee recommended setting up a panel of experts to review flagged content after release, frame cultural guidelines, and suggest penalties for violations. The house panel said these platforms, unlike films, face weak checks and minors remain exposed to harmful content. It also called for stronger age verification, better parental controls, and mandatory regional language content warnings on th eplatforms. This comes after the minister of information and broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw, recently revealed in Lok Sabha that the ministry had blocked 43 OTT platforms for obscene and objectionable content. The release of the report by the house panel also coincided with the passing of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill in Lok Sabha, which puts a ban on online money games. The committee in its report had recommended to the MeitY to create a dedicated online gaming ecosystem through broad consultations, one that tackles issues with real money and betting apps while also nurturing India's multimedia, animation, and gaming industries.
