09 May 2025 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

An application seeking to dismiss an election petition challenging the recent biennial election to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the Mumbai Teachers Constituency has been rejected by the court. The election, held on June 26, 2024, saw the respondent in the election petition declared successful on July 1, 2024. The petitioner in the election case is seeking to have the respondent's election declared null and void and to be declared the duly elected candidate.

The Core of the Dispute: Ineligible Voters and Electoral Roll Challenges:

The central contention of the election petition revolves around allegations of ineligible voters being included in the final electoral roll. The petitioner claims that 587 ineligible individuals were registered and voted, significantly impacting the outcome. The petitioner highlighted the narrow margin of victory, noting a difference of only 68 first-preferential votes in the initial round and 208 votes in the penultimate round between the applicant and the petitioner.

The petitioner alleges that these ineligible registrations occurred due to the undue influence of the successful candidate (the applicant in the dismissal plea), who previously held influential positions such as Chairman of the Maharashtra State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission and Minority Commission, and retired as Deputy Secretary of the School Education Department. The petition specifically names various educational institutions and claims that Headmasters/Principals facilitated the registration of 518 teachers from pre-primary and primary schools, as well as non-teaching staff, who are allegedly ineligible. Additionally, it's claimed that approximately 69 voters were between 18 and 25 years old, lacking the requisite three years of teaching experience.

The eligibility criteria for the Teachers Constituency, as per Section 27(3)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (the 1950 Act), requires electors to have been engaged in teaching for at least three years in the preceding six years in institutions "not lower in standard than that of a secondary school." The petitioner argues that primary and pre-primary teachers, as well as non-teaching staff, do not meet this criterion, despite a 1985 State Government notification listing various educational institutions as eligible. The petitioner asserts that while the institutions may be listed, eligibility is restricted to secondary sections and above.

Arguments for Dismissal: Finality of Electoral Rolls

The applicant (the successful candidate in the election) sought the dismissal of the election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), arguing that objections to the final electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition. Their primary arguments included:

• Timeliness of Objection: Objections to the electoral roll, if not raised before the last date of nomination (June 7, 2024), cannot be a subject of challenge in an election petition, with the only exception being names added after the nomination deadline.
• Vague Allegations: The petition lacks specific particulars regarding the alleged illegal addition of voters and undue influence by the applicant, and the concerned Headmasters/Principals are not made parties.
• Interpretation of Eligibility: The applicant contended that the petitioner's interpretation of eligibility for teachers in primary and pre-primary schools is based on a misconception, and that teachers from any institution with a secondary section are eligible.
• Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction: Section 30 of the 1950 Act bars civil courts from adjudicating questions regarding electoral rolls, and the High Court, for election petition purposes, acts as a civil court.
• Precedent: Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions, particularly Indrajit Barua and Others V/s Election Commission of India and Others and Hariprasad Mulshanker Trivedi Vs. V.B. Raju and Others, which suggest that the preparation of electoral rolls is not part of the "election process" and therefore not amenable to challenge in an election petition.

Court's Ruling: Cause of Action Exists, Trial Warranted

After reviewing the submissions and relevant legal precedents, the court rejected the application for dismissal, allowing the election petition to proceed to trial. The court emphasized that there is no absolute legal proposition barring a challenge to the electoral roll in an election petition.

Key points from the court's reasoning:

• Scope of "Election Process": The court clarified that while "preparation of electoral rolls" might not strictly be considered part of the "election process" for all purposes, the term "election" itself encompasses various stages that can significantly impact the outcome. Citing N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Indrajit Barua, the court affirmed that irregularities in the preparation of the electoral roll, if they materially affect the election result, can be questioned through an election petition.
• Absence of Alternative Remedy: Crucially, the court noted that for Teachers Constituencies in Legislative Council elections, the right of appeal under Section 24 of the 1950 Act to challenge breaches of Section 23 is not available. In the absence of any other remedy to object to illegalities in electoral roll preparation, the petitioner cannot be deprived of raising such objections via an election petition if the challenge materially affects the election outcome.
• Sufficient Particulars: The court found that the election petition contained sufficient material particulars regarding the alleged illegal addition of ineligible electors, which, if proven, would materially affect the election result. These specific averments, including the list of 587 alleged ineligible voters and the close vote margin, constitute a sufficient cause of action warranting a trial.
• Distinction from Precedent: The court distinguished the cases relied upon by the applicant, finding them not directly applicable to the specific circumstances of this petition, particularly the lack of an alternative remedy to challenge the electoral roll.

In conclusion, the court held that the objections raised in the election petition regarding the illegal addition of ineligible electors can indeed be tried, and the pleadings warrant a full trial. The Interim Application No. 8 of 2024 for dismissal was therefore rejected.