VINOD RAMCHANDRA GHOSALKAR Vs. MANISHA ASHOK CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. AMBIT OF THE CHALLENGE The Petitioner was the nominated candidate of the Shiv Sena for the 2014 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections from the Dahisar Assembly Constituency No. 153. The Petition challenges the election of the Respondent, Smt Manisha Ashok Chaudhary, the official candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party ("BJP"). In opposition to the Petitioner, amongst others, Smt Chaudhary secured 77,238 votes at the election. The Petitioner garnered 38,440 votes. Smt Chaudhary was declared elected.

(2.) When first filed in 2014, the Petition mounted the challenge to Ms Chaudhary's election on two grounds. First, that Smt Chaudhary's nomination papers were improperly accepted, and that her Affidavit required to be filed in accordance with the directives of the Election Commission of India was misleading. Specifically, the allegation was that the Affidavit, a photocopy of which is at Exhibit "B" to the Petition, did not mention in clauses 3(ii)(a) and (b) sufficient particulars of a previous criminal proceeding. I will pass over this very quickly at the forefront of this judgment for two reasons. First, it was not seriously canvassed at the final hearing. Second, it could not be seriously canvassed because the entire argument proceeded on this basis that the contents of that Affidavit were so vague that none could understand the true nature of the offence to which that portion of the Affidavit referred. This argument more or less defeated itself during the cross-examination of the Petitioner. Asked whether he himself fully understood the reference in that Affidavit, his answer was to say that he did. His allegation of insufficiency of the Affidavit and its particulars could not survive, once he agreed that the disclosure was sufficient.

(3.) The second and more significant challenge to the elections is in regard to an alleged electoral malpractice. The entire Petition, as we shall see, is focused on an interpretation of Sec. 123(1) read with Sec. 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 ("RP Act"). For convenience, and ready reference, I have reproduced Sections 100 and 123 in full in an annexure to this judgment.