Bombay High Court
Sneha Dube Pandit Alias Sneha Premnath ... vs Vijay Govind Patil on 7 August, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:12896
AEP(L)7709-2025f
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPLICATION (L) NO.7709 OF 2025
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO.2 OF 2025
Sneha Dube Pandit
@ Smt. Sneha Premnath Dube
Age 38 years, 60A/003, Mangalvandan
Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
Evershine City, Navghar, Manikpur,
Vasai, Palghar, Maharashtra-401202 ... Applicant
In the matter of between:
Vijay Govind Patil
Age 75 years,
Yashovardhan Bunglow,
At post Sasunavghar, NH-8, Vasai East,
Taluka Vasai, District Palghar-401208 ... Petitioner
Versus
Sneha Dube Pandit
@ Smt. Sneha Premnath Dube
Age 38 years, 60A/003, Mangalvandan
Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
Evershine City, Navghar, Manikpur,
Vasai, Palghar, Maharashtra-401202 ... Respondent
----------
Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w. Sahen Pradhan a/w. Ms.Sonal Dabholkar for the
Applicant-Original Respondent.
Ms. Neeta P. Karnik, Senior Advocate i/by Ms.Jovika Jimmy Gonsalves and
Mr.Jimmy Mates Gonsalves, Mr. Shrirana P. Katneshwarkar and Mr. Anthony
Floriyen for the Respondent-Original Petitioner.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : June 27, 2025
Pronounced on : August 07, 2025
sa_mandawgad 1 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
ORDER :
1. The present Interim Application has been preferred by the Returned Candidate whose election is called in question by the Election Petition, seeking dismissal of the Election Petition for non- disclosure of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The Election Petition seeks declaration that the election of the Applicant to the General Election 2024 to the State Assembly from 133-Vasai Assembly Constituency be declared to be void under Sections 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, "R.P. Act, 1971"). The Petition is premised on the ground that the Applicant has published statement of fact which is false with regard to the name of the Applicant and incomplete information in respect of the educational qualification of the Applicant.
3. The election of the Applicant is called in question on two grounds firstly that the Applicant has submitted incomplete information about her educational qualifications by stating only her highest educational qualification and there is improper acceptance of the Nomination and secondly that the Applicant with the connivance of the Returning Officer got her name published as "Sneha Dube sa_mandawgad 2 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f Pandit" which was not supported by any document and the name was changed in order to mislead the voters and take advantage of surname "Pandit" of one "Vivek Pandit" of Shramjivi Sanghatana, an influential name in the relevant constituency as Vivek Pandit is socially and politically active and in order to appeal to the voters in name of religion.
4. Before proceedings further, it would apposite to refer to the relevant pleadings in the Petition. In so far as the ground of submitting incomplete educational information is concerned, though during the hearing of the Application, submissions were canvassed in support of the said ground, the written submissions tendered are confined to change of name of the Applicant from "Sneha Premnath Dube" to "Sneha Dube Pandit". In any event, as substantial arguments were advanced on both the points, I have dealt with the same. RELEVANT PLEADINGS IN THE PETITION:
5. As far as incomplete educational information is concerned, the relevant pleading can be found in paragraph 5, 6 and 10 of the Petition. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the plaint, it is pleaded that the Applicant contested the election and on 29 th October, 2024 filed her nomination in Form 2-B and Affidavit in Form 26 alongwith documents with the Returning Officer mentioning her name as "Sneha Premnath sa_mandawgad 3 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f Dube". The Applicant in her Affidavit in Form 26 has mentioned her highest educational qualification which constitutes an incomplete nomination form which was accepted by the Returning Officer. In paragraph 10, it is pleaded that the action of the Returning Officer in accepting the incomplete Affidavit and in turn incomplete nomination form is illegal, against provisions of law and amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the R.P. Act, 1971.
6. As regards the allegation of change of the name from "Sneha Premnath Dube" to "Sneha Dube Pandit" is concerned, the relevant pleadings can be found in paragraph 7, 8, and 9 of the Petition. In paragraph 7, it is pleaded that on 29 th October, 2024, the Applicant filed an Application with the Returning Officer requesting her name on the ballot paper to be printed as "Sneha Dube Pandit", which was accepted by the Returning Officer. The Applicant has tried to take dis- advantage of the name "Pandit" which is very influential surname in the Vasai Assembly Constituency as one Sharamajivi Sanghatana of "Vivek Pandit" is very much socially and politically active and use of name "Pandit" on ballot paper is to mislead the voters. It is pleaded that the Applicant has no legal right to use "Pandit" alongwith "Dube" and use of the surname "Pandit" amounts to corrupt practices. It is pleaded that the Returning Officer has acted in connivance with the Applicant under the undue influence of the Applicant and the result of sa_mandawgad 4 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination of the Applicant. It is further pleaded that the Applicant by using the name of "Sneha Dube Pandit" has made an attempt to appeal to vote on the ground of community prejudicially affecting the election of the Respondent.
7. In paragraph 9, it is pleaded that upon a written application of the Petitioner's Advocate to the Returning Officer, there is no legal document supplied in respect of the Applicant's name as "Sneha Dube Pandit". The Applicant has no right to use the name "Sneha Dube Pandit" on the ballot papers and the Applicant has obtained assistance of the Returning Officer for furtherance of the prospects of the Applicant.
PLEADINGS IN THE INTERIM APPLICATION:
8. The Application pleads that no cause of action has arisen under Section 123(4) and no grounds under Section 100 of RP Act read with Article 173 of the Constitution of India are made out by the Respondent in the Election Petition. It is pleaded that as far as the educational qualification is concerned, in Form No.26, the Applicant has mentioned her highest educational qualification which was the requirement in Part A, Clause 10 of Form 26. It is pleaded that non-
sa_mandawgad 5 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
disclosure of educational qualification of matriculation and higher secondary certificate cannot constitute corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of RP Act.
9. As regards the use of the name of "Sneha Dube Pandit' on the ballot papers, it is pleaded that Vivek Pandit from Shramjivi Sanghatna is the Applicant's father and the Applicant was the working President of the Sanghatna on 21st March, 2022. It is pleaded that as per the Rules alongwith the nomination form, every candidate is required to submit additional information at the time of nomination by filling a form listed in list of documents annexed at Exhibit "A" and in this form in Clause IV, the candidate is asked to fill in the name 'he/she' wants to be printed on the ballot papers. It is pleaded that the necessary application was filed by the Applicant requesting that the name on the ballot papers to be printed as "Sneha Dube Pandit" which is the married and maiden surname alongwith her name. It is pleaded that the Petitioner has suppressed the form of "additional information from candidates at the time of nomination". It is further pleaded that the Respondent is aware that the Applicant is daughter of Vivek Pandit and despite thereof has made baseless allegation to create unnecessary cause of action.
sa_mandawgad 6 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
REPLY TO INTERIM APPLICATION:
10. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is pleaded that the averments in the Petition discloses the cause of action and material facts have been set out in support of the allegations. It is pleaded that it was necessary for the Applicant to disclose all material information in respect of her complete educational qualification and disclosing of last educational qualification amounts to corrupt practice. It is further pleaded that every document produced by the Applicant is in the name of "Sneha Premnath Dube" and not a single document shows her name as "Sneha Dube Pandit" and by use of the surname Pandit alongwith Dube influenced the minds of the voter by reason of which the results of returned candidate is materially affected. It is contended that the use of the surname "Pandit" on the ballot papers at the instance of Returning Officer amounts to a corrupt practice. It is contended that for use of maiden name, the Applicant was required to make an application for correction of her name and to publish a change of name in the Government Gazette and publish a public notice which has not been done and the use of the maiden name is only for purpose of influencing the minds of voters and the election of the Applicant who is returned candidate has been materially affected by the use of her maiden name on the ballot papers.
sa_mandawgad 7 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
SUBMISSIONS:
11. Mr. Nitin Pradhan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant has taken this Court through the relevant statutory provisions and the pleadings in the petition. He submits that the petition seeks declaration of the election as void on two grounds, firstly, as the Applicant has failed to submit all her educational qualification required to be furnished at Part A Clause 10 and secondly that the use of name as "Sneha Dube Pandit" on ballot papers was an attempt to get the votes of Shramjivi Sanghatana of Vivek Pandit.
12. As far as the first ground is concerned, he points out to Affidavit in Form 26, filed by the Applicant and annexed to the plaint Respondent and would submit that the prescribed format requires mentioning of the highest educational qualification only and as such the said ground does not disclose cause of action for questioning the election.
13. As far as second ground is concerned, he points out that the concise statement of facts annexed to the Petition and submits that Section 123(4) is required to be read conjointly with Section 100 (1)(c) and (d) which contemplates that the result of the election, as far as returned candidate is concerned, has been materially affected. He submits that neither in the relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 of the sa_mandawgad 8 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f Petition nor in the concise statement of facts, the Respondent has claimed that the alleged corrupt practice by returned candidate has materially affected the result of the election.
14. He would submit that the opportunity of making change in the name is given to the candidate as per Rule 8 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, if the candidate's name is different from the name by which he is popularly known. He would point out Page 120 of the plaint which is the Applicant's application made on 29 th October, 2024 requesting the Returning Officer to print her name as "Sneha Dube Pandit" on the ballot papers. He submits that there is no false statement made as the Applicant's maiden surname was "Pandit" as she is the daughter of Vivek Pandit of Shramjivi Sanghatna. He submits that Section 36 of R.P. Act, 1971 deals with the scrutiny of nominations and no objection was raised by the Respondent at that stage. He submits that the use of the maiden name does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971 and there is no corrupt practice by use of maiden name. In support, he relies on the following decisions:
(i) Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)1
(ii) Samar Singh vs. Kedar Nath alias K.N.Singh and Ors.2
(iii) U.S.Sasidharan vs. K. Karunakaran and Anr.3 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 2 1987 (Supp) SCC 663 3 (1989) 4 SCC 482 sa_mandawgad 9 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f
(iv) Iqbal Singh vs. Avtar Singh and Ors.4
(v) Subhash Desai vs. Sharad J. Rao and Ors.5
(vi) Anil Yeshwant Desai vs. Mahendra Tulshiram Bhingardive6
15. Per contra, Ms. Karnik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent submits that at the time of submission of her nomination paper alongwith the Affidavit, the Applicant had stated on oath that her name is "Sneha Premnath Dube" and on same day called upon the Returning Officer to change her name on ballot paper to "Sneha Dube Pandit" which is impermissible. She submits that without verifying the genuineness of the request, the Returning Officer allowed the application. She submits that the Affidavit filed at at the time of delivering the nomination is sworn as per Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, however, the change in name is permitted without any affirmation or oath in breach of provisions of Rule 4A. She submits that She submits that Section 33(4) requires the name on nomination to be as per the electoral roll which is therefore significant and entitles the voter to contest the election. She submits that change of name by the Applicant does not fit in the exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 33(4) of the R.P. Act, 1971 and constitutes breach of Section 33(4) and the Rules resulting in improper acceptance of nomination form giving rise to cause of action 4 1994 Supp (2) SCC 746 5 1994 Supp (2) SCC 446 6 Decision of this Court in AEP(Ld) No.29382 of 2024 sa_mandawgad 10 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of R.P. Act, 1971.
16. She submits that Section 123(2) of R.P. Act, 1971 refers to undue influence and by change of name, undue influence is created. Rule 8 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 lays emphasis on the form and spelling and the said Rule cannot override Section 33 of RP Act.
17. She would further submit that by using the surname "Pandit, the Applicant has made an appeal to gain votes from specific community and followers of Shramjivi Sanghatna for furtherance of her election prospects and for prejudicially affecting the election of other candidates. She would point out that under Section 36(2)(b) of RP Act, the Returning Officer is entitled to reject the nomination, where there is failure to comply with the provisions of Section 33 of R.P. Act, 1971 and therefore should have rejected the nomination paper as the name of the Applicant in the electoral roll appears as "Sneha Premnath Dube" and not as "Sneha Dube Pandit". She submits that the acceptance of the nomination by the Returning Officer amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971.
18. She would further submit that the provisions of Section 79(b) defines a candidate to mean a person who claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election which is linked to Section sa_mandawgad 11 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f 123(4) and where any statement of fact which is false in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate is made with an intention to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election would mean even the false statement made by the candidate in respect of his own personal character or conduct. She submits that material facts with necessary particulars seeking election to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of R.P. Act, 1971 are set out in Ground (b) of the Petition.
19. She submits that the Respondent filed her nomination form by providing false name, thereby causing improper acceptance of the nomination form and subsequently adopted a false name to prejudice the prospect of other candidates.
20. She would further submit that as far as the incomplete information as regards the educational qualification is concerned, Part A is different from Part B. She would further point out to the handbook of Returning Officer and would submit that Clause 5.11D pertaining to the preliminary examination of nomination paper is restricted to entries relating to name and electoral roll details as given in the nomination papers and to reject incomplete nominations. She would further submit that the grounds for rejecting nomination papers are set out in Clause 6.10, which provides for rejection that the sa_mandawgad 12 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f oath or affirmation is not made by the candidate as required under the Constitution of India. She would submit that Clause 6.13 which deals with the correction in the name of the candidate provides that the correction can be made only when the name incorrectly spelled or incorrectly shown in the nomination form which are required to be rectified before the list of candidates is prepared.
21. Drawing attention to the pleadings in the Petition and the grounds, she submits that the cause of action has been set out in the Petition. She submits that for the purpose of continuing with the maiden name after her marriage it was necessary for a gazette notification to be published and in all the documents filed by the Applicant the name "Sneha Premnath Dube" is reflected. She submits that in the application at page 120, the Applicant does not say that the change is for the reason that she is popularly known by the said name. In support, she relies on the following decisions:
(i) Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.7
(ii) Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs. Sukh Darshan Singh and Ors.8
(iii) Virender Nath Gautham vs. Satpal Singh and Ors.9
(iv) Ashraf Kokkur vs. K.V. Abdul Khader and Ors. 10
(v) Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant 7 (2004) 9 SCC 512 8 (2004) 11 SCC 196 9 (2007) 3 SCC 617 10 (2015) 1 SCC 129 sa_mandawgad 13 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f and Ors.11
(vi) Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. Peddireddigari Ramchandra Reddy and Ors.12
(vii) Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr.13
(viii) Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr.14
(ix) Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India and Anr.15
(x) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil vs. K. Madan Mohan Rao and Ors.16
(xi) G.M. Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar17
(xii) Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh18
(xiii) Aruj Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.19
(xiv) Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy vs. Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy and Ors.20
(xv) Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar and Ors.21 (xvi) Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal22 REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
22. Under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, the Court is empowered to dismiss the suit at the threshold if the same does not disclose cause of action. It is well settled that for the purpose of adjudication of an 11 (2014) 14 SCC 162 12 (2018) 14 SCC 1 13 (2002) 5 SCC 294 14 (2003) 4 SCC 399 15 (2014) 14 SCC 189 16 (2023) 18 SCC 231 17 (2013) 4 SCC 776 18 (2017) 2 SCC 487 19 (2020) 7 SCC 1 20 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1467 21 (2015) SCC OnLine SC 102 22 (2017) 5 SCC 345 sa_mandawgad 14 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is only the plaint alongwith the documents which are germane and can be looked into.
23. Before dealing with the pleadings, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the statutory provisions. The election can be called into question on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the R.P. Act, 1971. In the present case, the election is questioned under Section 100 (1)(b), Section 100 (1)(d)(i), Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) R.P. Act, 1971 which reads as under:
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion--
(a) ...
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) .....
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) .....
(iii) ....
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
(2) ......
(a) ......
(b) ......
sa_mandawgad 15 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
(c) ......
(d) ......"
24. Section 100(1)(b) of R.P. Act, 1971 is referable to corrupt practice governed by Section 123 of the R.P. Act, 1971. In the present case, the corrupt practice is alleged under Section 123 (2), 123(3), 123(4) and 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971. Upon holistic reading of the Petition, the allegation of corrupt practice can be succinctly summarised as under:
Under Section 123(2) and Section 123(3):
(a) by use of the surname "Pandit" illegally, the Applicant has attempted to take disadvantage of the surname which is an politically and socially influential surname in Vasai Assembly Constituency.
(b) an attempt has been made to mislead the voters.
Under Section 123(4):
(c) There is false statement made regarding the Applicant's candidature by change of name to prejudice prospect of other candidates and affect the election.
Under Section 123(7):
(d) The Returning Officer has acted in connivance with the Applicant and the Applicant has exerted undue influence and the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination of Respondent.
sa_mandawgad 16 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
25. Dealing first with the alleged corrupt practice under Section 124 (4) of R.P. Act, 1971, the pleading in paragraph 10 is that by providing incomplete educational qualification, the nomination form was incomplete and amounts to corrupt practice as contemplated under Section 123(4) of R.P. Act, 1971, whereas in Ground (o), it is pleaded that the use of name "Pandit" on ballot papers which is false amounts to corrupt practice under Section 124(4) of R.P. Act, 1971.
26. Section 123 (4) of R.P. Act, 1971 reads as under:
"123. Corrupt practices.--The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--
(1) -----------
(2) -------------
(3) ----------
(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any
other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election."
27. Plain reading of the above provision would indicate that for an act to constitute a corrupt practice it is required that (a) there is publication of statement of fact which is false or which the candidate does not believe to be true and (b) in relation to character or conduct of any candidate and (c) being calculated to prejudice the prospect of sa_mandawgad 17 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f that candidate's election. The publication of false statement of fact is required to be in respect of any candidate with the intent to prejudice the prospects of that candidate. The interpretation placed by Ms. Karnik that the use of the expression "any candidate" would include even the returned candidate in present case is misplaced as it overlooks the expression "calculated to prejudice the prospect of that candidate's election" used in the said provision. The expression "prejudice" conveys a negative impact and is therefore necessarily referable to a candidate other than the candidate making the false statement of fact. It is incomprehensible that a candidate would make false statement of fact in order to prejudice his own prospects in the election.
28. Assuming arguendo that the corrupt practice of false statement of fact as regards character and conduct is applicable even to the candidate making the false statement, the allegation of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) is based on cause of action of furnishing of incomplete educational qualification as set out in paragraph 10 read with Ground(a) of the Petition and for reason of change of name as set out in Ground (o) of the Petition. The applicability of Section 123(4) of R.P. Act, 1971 to the facts of the present case is itself in doubt. Section 123(4) mandates making of false statement as regards character and conduct and neither the educational qualification of a sa_mandawgad 18 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f candidate nor the change of name is referable to the person's character or conduct. As understood in common parlance "character" and "conduct" refers to a persons nature or behaviour.
29. That apart, upon perusal of format of Affidavit in Form 26 as prescribed under The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Part A Clause 10 is as under:
"(10) My educational qualification is as under:-
...................
(Give details of highest School/University education mentioning the full form of the certificate/diploma/degree course, name of the School/College/University and the year in which the course was completed.)"
30. The Applicant was therefore required to give details of her highest educational qualification, which she has given in accordance with the prescribed format. The cause of action to declare the election void based on incomplete educational qualification and thus improper acceptance of nomination form is thus an illusory cause of action and there is no corrupt practice on part of the returned candidate under Section 123(4) of R.P. Act, 1971 which will warrant the suit to proceed to full trial. It also needs to be noted that under Section 36(4) of R.P. Act, 1971, the nomination form is to be rejected on ground of defect of substantial character. The non mentioning of all the educational qualifications as the highest qualification set out in sa_mandawgad 19 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f the form is an indicator of the educational qualifications possessed by the Applicant. or use of maiden family name alongwith married name cannot form a defect of substantial character necessitating rejection of nomination papers. The purpose of giving all details is to make available the true information of the contesting candidate to the voters, so that they can make an informed choice, which information has been set out in the nomination form.
31. Coming next to the ground of corrupt practice alleged under Section 123(2) and Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971, Section 123(2) provides that an undue influence that is to say any direct or indirect interference on part of candidate with the free exercise of electoral right constitutes a corrupt practice. Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971 provides that the appeal by a candidate to vote or refrain from voting for any person on ground of religion, race, caste, community or language for furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate is corrupt practice.
32. Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1971 provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies and shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as sa_mandawgad 20 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. It is well settled that Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971 is mandatory and requires the election petition to contain first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. The material facts will show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause of action and the particulars will give the necessary information to present a full picture of cause of action. Facts which are essential to disclose a complete cause of action are material facts and are essentially required to be pleaded and particulars are details of the case set up by the party and are such pleas which are necessary to amplify, refine or explain material facts. The material facts on which the party relies for his claim must be stated in the pleadings. The Petitioner has cited multiple authorities in support of the above proposition and it is not necessary to burden the order by dealing with all the authorities laying the same proposition of law. What is significant is the application of the settled law to the facts of each case. (See Sardar Haracharan Singh Brar vs. Sukh Darshan Singh and Others, Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh, Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy, Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India & Anr, G.M. Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. sa_mandawgad 21 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors (supra).
33. Applying the well settled law to the facts of the present case, the averments in the Petition will have to be scrutinised to ascertain whether the material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practice is pleaded. The written submissions refers to Section 123(2) of R.P. Act, 1971, whereas in Ground (c) refers to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971.The pleading in the Petition is that the Applicant has tried to take advantage of the surname "Pandit" to mislead the voters as one "Vivek Pandit" of Shramjivi Sanghtana is socially and politically influential name in the relevant constituency and to appeal on ground of community. This is the only pleading in the Petition to allege the corrupt practice under Section 123(2) and Section 123(3) of R.P. Act, 1971 and nothing further. What is required by Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971 is to set out concise statement of material facts and to give full particulars. It is not sufficient to make bald assertions in the Petition that the Applicant has taken disadvantage of the surname "Pandit" without pleading about the manner in which the Respondent attempted to exploit the surname "Pandit" during the election process which amounts to corrupt practice. There is not even a bare averment that there was an appeal by the Respondent to the voters to vote in her favour by exploiting the surname "Pandit" or of "Vivek Pandit" or "Sharmjivi Sanghtana"
sa_mandawgad 22 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
much less any particulars of the alleged corrupt practice of misleading the voters or appealing for votes on ground of race, caste, community or religion. It is not sufficient to make a bald assertion in the Petition that the Respondent tried to take advantage of change of name without setting out the material facts as to the manner in which the changed name was used to gain votes by misleading voters or appealing on ground of religion, caste, race etc so as to constitute corrupt practice. The Petition is bereft of the material facts necessary to constitute corrupt practice and there are no particulars i.e. the location, place, date etc when the Respondent made an appeal for vote by use of the surname "Pandit", or "Shramjivi Sanghtana" or "Vivek Pandit" and thus interfered with the free exercise of any electoral right, mislead the voters or appealed on ground of race, religion or caste. It is also not pleaded that the Respondent's religion, race or caste changed after marriage and the reversion to the Respondent's maiden name was to garner votes on ground by appealing on ground of religion, caste etc. The pleadings in the Petition are mere surmises and conjectures that by reason of change of name an attempt was made to garner votes by exploiting the changed name. The principles summarised in Krishnamoorthy Vs Sivakumar & Ors (supra) cannot be debated and what is required is the examination of facts of present case to ascertain whether the sa_mandawgad 23 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f pleadings set out the material facts to infer corrupt practice under Section 123 (2) or 123(3) of R.P. Act.
34. It is not debated that the Applicant filed the nomination form as' Sneha Premnath Dube on 29th October, 2024 and on the same day in the prescribed form applied to the Returning Officer to print her name on ballot paper as Sneha Dube Pandit. Rule 8 of the The Conduct of Elections Rules,1961 provides that the list of validly nominated candidate referred to in sub section (8) of Section 36 shall be in Form No.4 and Rule 8(2) provides that the name of the candidate shall be shown in the list as it appears in his nomination papers. The proviso to Rule 8(2) provides that if a candidate considers that his name is incorrectly spelled/incorrectly shown in the nomination paper or is different from the name by which he is popularly known, he may at any time before the list of contesting candidates is prepared, furnish in writing to the Returning Officer the proper form and spelling of his name and accordingly the Returning Officer shall make the necessary correction in the list in Form No.4 and adopt that form and spelling in list of contesting candidates. The Rule therefore provides for correction of name in three situations firstly where the name is incorrectly spelt, secondly where it is otherwise incorrectly shown in his nomination paper and thirdly where his name is different from the name by which he is popularly known. The Returning Officer sa_mandawgad 24 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f on being satisfied on genuineness of the request may make the necessary correction or alteration in the list in Form 4. The submission of Ms. Karnik that what can be corrected is only form and spelling is by reason of reading the proviso as restricted only to the first two categories and overlooks the third category which refers to the correction when the name of a candidate is different from the name by which he is popularly known. The expression "form and spelling"
used in the proviso to Rule 8(2) cannot be given strict dictionary meaning as the same would run contrary to the intention in providing for third category of correction of name to a popularly known name which correction may not be restricted only to form and spelling.
35. The proviso to Rule 8(2) permitting correction of a candidate's name when it differs from the popularly known name makes it evident that in order to support such correction, there would not be any legal document such as passport, educational documents etc to support the popularly known name as all legal documents would reflect the official name of the candidate. Though it is sought to be contended that the application for change of the name does not mention that the candidate is popularly known by "Sneha Dube Pandit", the application has been filed in prescribed format which does not provide for furnishing of any other information except the changed name.
sa_mandawgad 25 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
36. The Applicant has specifically pleaded that the Applicant's maiden family name was "Pandit", which has not been disputed by the Respondent and it is common to use the maiden family name alongwith the married family name. There is no provision brought to the notice of this Court that for use of maiden family name alongwith the married family name, the publication in the Official Gazette or publication of any notice is the mandatory requirement. The Applicant has not changed her name to a completely different unconnected family name which will require detailed examination.
37. The Returning Officer accepted the change of name, which according to the Respondent amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971. The requirement of Section 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971 is obtaining of assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election. As discussed earlier, it was necessary to plead the material facts and give full particulars of the manner in which the Applicant exerted undue influence or connived with the Returning Officer. It would have been a different aspect if there was surreptitious change of name by the Returning Officer without the Respondent being permitted to scrutinise the nomination form. This is not the pleaded case of the Respondent. The pleading is only that as the Returning Officer has acted in connivance with the Applicant and the Applicant exerted undue influence, which is not sa_mandawgad 26 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f sufficient to disclose cause of action under Section 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971.
38. Section 100(1)(d)(i) provides for ground of challenge on improper acceptance of nomination form if the result of election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected. The case of the Respondent hinges basically on the improper acceptance of nomination form by accepting the change of name. As Rule 8 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1971 itself provides for such change in the name to be accepted by the Returning Officer, the pleadings must disclose firstly that there is improper acceptance of nomination form and secondly the manner in which the result of election has been materially affected by such acceptance.
39. There is no pleading in the Petition that the change in the Applicant's name from Sneha Premnath Dube to Sneha Dube Pandit has materially affected the result of the election in so far as the returned candidate is concerned. The pleading which can be found in paragraph 7 of the Petition is :
"The Petitioner states that the Returning Officer has acted in connivance with the Respondent and so also the Respondent exerted undue influence on the Returning Officer the result of the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of nomination of the Respondent."
sa_mandawgad 27 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
The cause of action alleged is change of name and the material facts was required to be pleaded to show how the change of name has materially affected the result of the election. The sine qua non for challenging the election under Section 100(1)(d) is that the result of election in so far as the returned candidate is concerned has been materially affected. In Karim Uddin Barbhuya vs Aminul Haque Laskar23, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph 22 to 24 as under:
"22. So far as the ground contained in clause (d) of Section 100(1) of the Act, with regard to improper acceptance of the nomination of the Appellant is concerned, there is not a single averment made in the Election Petition as to how the result of the election, in so far as the appellant was concerned, was materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination, so as to constitute a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Though it is true that the Election Petitioner is not required to state as to how corrupt practice had materially affected the result of the election, nonetheless it is mandatory to state when the clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) is invoked as to how the result of election was materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination form of the Appellant.(Emphasis supplied).
23. As transpiring from the Election Petition, the respondent no. 1 himself had not raised any objection in writing against the nomination filed by the Appellant, at the time of scrutiny made by the Returning Officer under Section 36 of the Act. According to him, he had raised oral objection with regard to the education qualification stated by the Appellant in the Affidavit in Form-26. If he could make oral objection, he could as well, have made objection in writing against the acceptance of nomination of the Appellant, and in that case the Returning Officer would have decided his objection under sub-section (2) of Section 36, after holding a summary inquiry. Even if it is accepted that he had 23 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509 sa_mandawgad 28 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f raised an oral objection with regard to the educational qualification of the Appellant before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny, the respondent no. 1 has failed to make averment in the Election Petition as to how Appellant's nomination was liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds mentioned in Section 36(2) of the Act, so as to make his case fall under clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) that there was improper acceptance of the nomination of the Appellant. The non-mentioning of the particulars as to how such improper acceptance of nomination had materially affected the result of the election, is apparent on the face of the Election Petition. (Emphasis supplied).
24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act."
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when clause (d)(i) of Section 100 of R.P. Act, 1971 is invoked it is mandatory to state as to how the result of election was materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination form of the Appellant. Neither the concise statement of facts appended to the Election Petition nor the pleadings in the Petition pleads about the result of election being materially affected by change of name much less set out the particulars.
sa_mandawgad 29 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
41. In case of Subash Desai Vs Sharad J Rao (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that before the Court proceeds to investigate allegations of corrupt practices, the Court must be satisfied that the material facts have been stated alongwith the full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged by the Petitioner and in cases where the Court finds that neither material facts have been pleaded nor full particulars of the corrupt practice as required by Section 83 have been furnished in the election petition, the election petition can be dismissed not under Section 86 of R.P. Act, 1971 but under provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable, read with Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1971 saying that it does not disclose a cause of action.
42. The Petition does not plead any material facts to show the manner in which the result of election has been materially affected. In facts such as the present case, the material facts to be pleaded was that the Applicant has exploited the surname "Pandit" and appealed to voters to cast their votes in her favour and that by reason of change of name, the voters cast their vote in favour of the Applicant who otherwise would have voted in favour of the Respondent. Sans any material pleadings, the Petition does not disclose any cause of action to invoked Section 100 (1)(d) of R.P. Act, 1971.
sa_mandawgad 30 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
43. Section 33 of R.P. Act, 1971 deals with the presentation of nomination paper and requirements for valid nomination. Thereafter under Section 35 of R.P. Act, 1971, date time and place is fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers and Section 36 of R.P. Act, 1971 provides for scrutiny of nominations and under Sub-Section (8) of Section 36, after all nomination papers are scrutinised and decisions accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded the list of validly nominated candidates is prepared. Under Section 38 of R.P. Act, 1971, after the expiry of period within which the candidatures may be withdrawn the returning officer shall prepare and publish the list of contesting candidate. The Applicant filed her application for change of name on the same day of filing of nomination i.e. 29 th October, 2024. The statutory provisions permit the scrutiny of nomination by the candidates and no objection was taken by the Respondent which could have been dealt with by the Returning Officer as provided under Section 36(2) of R.P. Act, 1971. This is not to say that subsequently no objection could be raised on ground of improper acceptance of nomination form. In Kisan Shankar Kathore vs Arun Dattaray Sawant (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the issue of suppression of debts and assets in the nomination form. The argument was that nomination could be rejected only if any of the grounds under Section 36(2) was satisfied and the Hon'ble Apex Court sa_mandawgad 31 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f held that it is not possible for Returning Officer to conduct a detailed examination and ultimately if it is proved that it was case of non- disclosure it can be held to be improper acceptance of nomination. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable as it was case of suppression of assets which would warrant detailed examination.
44. In case of Jyoti Basu vs Debi Ghosal24, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the provisions of R.P. Act, 1971 to hold that right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. An election proceeding to which neither the common law not the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies.
45. There thus has to be strict compliance with the requirements of the statutory provisions and the pleadings have to be specific, precise and unambiguous as contemplated by Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I and Anr. (supra). In the present case what was required to be pleaded and to disclose cause of action are full particulars of the corrupt practice and pleadings as to how the improper acceptance of nomination form has 24 (1982) 1 SCC 691 sa_mandawgad 32 of 34 AEP(L)7709-2025f materially affected the result of election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate. The Petition when read in a meaningful manner does not disclose the cause of action required under Section 100(1)
(b), Section 100 (1) (d)(i) and Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act, 1971.
46. The pleadings in the Petition when read holistically does not set out statement of fact disclosing cause of action for challenging the election on ground of corrupt practice or improper acceptance of nomination or non compliance with statutory provisions or Constitution of India for the following reasons:
(a) As far as cause of action pertaining to incomplete educational qualification is concerned, the Applicant has mentioned her highest educational qualification in accordance with the prescribed format of Affidavit in Form 26.
(b) As far as change of name from "Sneha Premnath Dube" to "Sneha Dube Pandit" is concerned, the Applicant has adopted her maiden family name with her married family name, which is not disputed by the Respondent and therefore the Returning Officer cannot be held to have acted in connivance with the Applicant. There cannot be illegal adoption by a woman of her maiden family name.
(c) The proviso to Rule 8(2) of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 permits a candidate to correct his name if the candidate considers that his name is different from the name by which he is popularly known, which has been done by the Applicant.
sa_mandawgad 33 of 34
AEP(L)7709-2025f
(d) The Application for correction of name to be printed on ballot paper was filed on the same day as filing of nomination paper i.e. 29th October, 2024 and not surreptitiously. There is no improper acceptance of the nomination form.
(e) The Petition does not disclose that the acceptance of change of name by adopting the maiden family name alongwith married family name amounts to improper acceptance of nomination form. There is no pleading as to the manner in which the result of the election has been materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination form or change of name by the Applicant.
(f) The averments in the plaint when read holistically fails to disclose a cause of action of corrupt practice under Section 123(2), 123(3), 123(4) or 123(7) of R.P. Act, 1971.
(g) Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1971 requires that the Election Petition must contain concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice. In absence of such facts and particulars being pleaded in the Petition, the Petition is non compliant with Section 81 of R.P. Act, 1971 and liable to be dismissed.
47. In light of the above discussion, in absence of disclosure of cause of action, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. The Interim Application stands allowed.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
sa_mandawgad 34 of 34
Signed by: Sachin R. Patil
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/08/2025 20:53:43