Bombay High Court dismisses election petition against BJP legislator Tamil Selvan

Time of India

a day ago

Mumbai: Observing that the petition comprised vague and generic pleadings, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed against the victory of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
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.
" Justice Jadhav, after hearing senior counsel Veerendra Tulzapurkar, who represented Selvan, said he did not subscribe to Krishnan's submission.
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."
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
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.