Bombay HC Rejects Pune Cantonment Election Petition for Lack of Material Facts on EVM Use and Corrupt Practice
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the petition challenging Sunil Kamble's 2024 assembly win failed to plead material facts required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has rejected an election petition filed by Ramesh Anandrao Bagwe seeking to void the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election result from the 214 Pune Cantonment constituency. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, sitting singly, allowed an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sections 83, 86, and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and dismissed the petition in limine. The returned candidate, Sunil Dnyandev Kamble, had secured 76,032 votes against Bagwe's 65,712. The court found that the petition disclosed no material facts constituting a cause of action under Section 100 of the RP Act, contained only bald and generalised allegations regarding Electronic Voting Machines, and misread the legal requirements of Section 61A and Section 123(7) of the RP Act.
The Contest and the Challenge Before the Court
Kamble was declared elected from the 214 Pune Cantonment Legislative Assembly Constituency following the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. The Election Commission of India issued a press note on 15 October 2024 setting out the election programme. Nomination forms of both Bagwe and Kamble were accepted under that programme.
Bagwe filed Election Petition No. 32 of 2025 seeking a declaration that Kamble's election was void. The grounds spanned four broad heads: that no notification was issued under Section 61A of the RP Act authorising use of EVMs; that EVM-VVPAT machines were not compliant with mandatory guidelines, including non-engraving of serial numbers and failure of the Returning Officer to personally sign and seal machines under Rule 49B of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961; that non-supply of election information under the RTI Act constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the RP Act; and that a supplementary voters list adding 2,943 names after acceptance of nomination papers amounted to improper reception of votes under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the RP Act.
Kamble responded by filing Application (L) No. 11620 of 2026 seeking rejection of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the petition did not disclose material facts constituting a cause of action and failed to set out material particulars of corrupt practice as required by Section 83 of the RP Act.
The Legal Questions the Court Had to Resolve
Three distinct legal questions emerged from the submissions. First, whether Section 61A of the RP Act requires the Election Commission to issue a formal notification, or whether a press note specifying that voting would be by EVM suffices. Second, whether non-supply of information under the RTI Act — sought after the declaration of results — can constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the RP Act. Third, whether the addition of voters to the electoral roll after acceptance of nomination papers, without more, amounts to improper reception of void votes under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the RP Act.
Mr. Balkrushna Joshi, appearing for Kamble, drew support from the coordinate bench decision in Datta Rangnath Bahirat v. Sidharth S/O Padmakar Shirole (AEP No. 23 of 2025, decided 17 November 2025), which had considered an identical Section 61A challenge from the Shivajinagar constituency in the same 2024 elections and held that a press note is sufficient compliance. He argued that the RTI applications were filed after results were declared on 23 November 2024 and therefore could not have furthered any candidate's electoral prospects. The EVM allegations, he said, were wholly vague.
Mr. Nitin Deshpande, appearing for Bagwe, sought to distinguish Datta Rangnath Bahirat on the ground that the present petition, in paragraphs 6, 16, 17, and 18, specifically pleaded that the Election Commission had not specified that voting would be by voting machine — a pleading absent in the earlier case. He also contended that the non-supply of information was for the purpose of furthering Kamble's electoral prospects and that the discrepancy between the voters list of 30 August 2024 and the final list demonstrated manipulation.
How the Court Reasoned Through Each Ground
Section 61A — EVM notification: The court read Section 61A in plain terms. The provision requires only that the Election Commission “specify” that the giving and recording of votes would be by voting machine; it does not mandate issuance of a notification. The court went through paragraphs 6, 16, 21, 22, and 23 of the petition on which Bagwe's counsel placed reliance. Paragraph 6 claimed a notification was required; paragraph 21 claimed such a notification had not been provided to the petitioner; paragraph 22 stated that the petitioner was “not aware of any notification” issued under Section 61A. The court found that none of these paragraphs contained any allegation that the Election Commission had failed to specify voting by machine. The pleaded case was only about the absence of a notification — a requirement that does not exist under the statute.
The court applied Datta Rangnath Bahirat directly, noting that the coordinate bench had held a press note to be sufficient compliance and that the same press note of 15 October 2024 applied to the Pune Cantonment election. The distinction urged by Bagwe — that he had additionally pleaded how the result was materially affected — was rejected. Once the foundation of the challenge (absence of notification) collapses, a mere repetition of the language of Section 100(1)(d) cannot save the ground.
EVM non-compliance with Rule 49B and guidelines: The court examined paragraphs 22 to 33 of the petition dealing with alleged non-compliance with Rule 49B of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and found them to be “bald assertions devoid of any particulars.” The petition did not identify which machines carried which serial numbers pasted rather than engraved, which stamps were used on which seals, or in what manner polling personnel were technically ill-equipped. There was also no pleading demonstrating how the alleged non-compliance materially affected the result of the returned candidate. Non-compliance of rules alone does not void an election; Section 100(1)(d)(iv) requires that such non-compliance materially affect the result, and that nexus was entirely absent from the petition.
Election expenses: On the allegation of expenses in excess of the prescribed limit, the court noted that Bagwe himself pleaded that particulars of Kamble's campaign expenditure were not provided to him and were not available on the website. It was therefore impossible to allege non-compliance of the circular dated 30 September 2024 when the petitioner had no knowledge of the actual figures. The photographs relied upon for a Model Code of Conduct violation did not contain any specific pleading as to how the result was materially affected.
Section 123(7) — RTI non-supply as corrupt practice: The court read Section 123(7) according to its text. The provision penalises obtaining or procuring “any assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election.” The RTI application for election information was filed on 27 November 2024, four days after the results were declared on 23 November 2024. Post-result non-supply of information under the RTI Act cannot constitute assistance for furthering a candidate's electoral prospects. Beyond timing, there was also no pleading that Kamble or his agent had obtained any such assistance. The ground under Section 123(7) was found to be devoid of a cause of action on both counts.
Supplementary voters list — Section 100(1)(d)(iii): The petition pleaded that the voters list declared on 30 August 2024 showed 2,92,889 voters at the time Bagwe's nomination was accepted, whereas the final voters list showed 2,95,382 — an addition of 2,943 voters after acceptance of nomination papers. Bagwe argued this constituted improper reception of votes under Section 100(1)(d)(iii).
The court held that the mere addition of voters to the electoral roll does not, without more, amount to improper reception of a void vote. The petition contained no pleading that the votes of these additional voters were improperly received or void. Neither the voters list of 30 August 2024 nor the supplementary list said to have been published on 29 October 2024 was appended to the plaint. There was no bare assertion even that the additional votes went in favour of Kamble. The court applied Datta Rangnath Bahirat again, noting that identical pleadings had failed in that case on the same ground.
The Binding Effect of the Coordinate Bench Decision
The court found that Datta Rangnath Bahirat v. Sidharth S/O Padmakar Shirole was squarely applicable. That petition had challenged the Shivajinagar constituency result from the same 2024 Maharashtra elections, raising substantially similar grounds on Section 61A, EVM compliance, electoral roll discrepancies, and corrupt practices. The coordinate bench, after examining the pleadings in that petition, had held that there was a failure to plead a concise statement of material facts or material particulars of corrupt practice as required by Section 83 of the RP Act, and dismissed the petition.
Justice Deshmukh found the pleadings in the present petition to be substantially similar. The court stated that it was respectfully bound by the coordinate bench's decision on the Section 61A question. On the voters list ground, the court applied the same ratio, finding no pleading of which constitutional provision, RP Act provision, or rule was violated by the addition of voters, and no pleading showing improper reception of void votes.
As for the fifteen Supreme Court and High Court decisions placed on record by Bagwe's counsel through written submissions, the court observed that no attempt was made to demonstrate their applicability to the specific factual scenario. The propositions of law in those decisions were not disputed, but the ground for dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC depended on the facts of the present petition, and that applicability was not demonstrated.
On the broader principle, the court observed that it is not merely non-compliance of provisions or rules which renders an election void — the returned candidate's result must be shown to have been materially affected by such non-compliance. The court also noted that in the absence of specific pleadings disclosing cause of action, the returned candidate cannot be made to “suffer the agonies of trial.”
Order
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh allowed Application (L) No. 11620 of 2026 filed by Sunil Dnyandev Kamble. The Election Petition No. 32 of 2025 filed by Ramesh Anandrao Bagwe was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and stands dismissed. All other interim applications, if any, were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.