Court Finds Lack of Material Facts and Full Particulars in Petition Alleging Corrupt Practices
In a significant ruling on June 8, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique as the MLA from Malegaon Central Constituency. The petition, filed by Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid, alleged various corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including undue influence through religious appeals, vilification of personal character, and improper reception of votes. Justice N.J. Jamadar presided over the matter.
The petitioner claimed that Mufti Khalique, being a religious leader, used his position to influence voters by invoking divine displeasure through prayers (Dua) and speeches during the election campaign. It was also alleged that religious organizations endorsed Khalique, urging voters to support him based on religious grounds, and that votes were cast in the names of deceased individuals.
In response, Mufti Khalique sought the rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, citing a lack of material facts and full particulars as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He argued that the petition did not disclose a cause of action and that mere references to religion in election speeches do not constitute corrupt practices unless they directly appeal to vote or refrain from voting on religious grounds.
Justice Jamadar, upon careful examination, found that the petition failed to meet the statutory requirements of providing a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices. The court noted that the petition lacked specific details, such as the time, place, and content of the alleged offenses, which are essential to establish a cause of action. Furthermore, the court observed that religious references in election speeches are not prohibited unless they are used to solicit votes based on the candidate's religion.
The judgment also addressed the issue of votes cast in the names of deceased individuals. The court found that the petition did not provide sufficient evidence or affidavits from polling agents to substantiate the claim of improper reception of void votes. As such, the allegations were deemed too vague to establish any material impact on the election result.
This ruling underscores the importance of precise and detailed pleadings in election petitions, reaffirming the principle that elections should not be invalidated lightly. The court emphasized that the right to contest elections and challenge their validity is a statutory remedy that must adhere strictly to the provisions of the law.
With this decision, Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique remains the duly elected representative of the Malegaon Central Constituency, and the petition stands rejected with no order as to costs.
Bottom line:-
Election Petition - Rejection of election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC due to lack of material facts and full particulars as required under section 83 of the Representation of The People Act, 1951. Presence of a returned candidate during alleged corrupt practices does not in itself imply consent. Religious references in election campaigns are not prohibited under Section 123(3) of the RP Act unless they involve a direct appeal to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of religion.
Statutory provision(s): Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, Section 83, Section 100(1)(d)(iii), Section 123(3) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2918700
