Campaign nfluence is not ‘undue influence’ without interference with voters’ free will: Bombay High Court
- Case Title: Md. Arif Lalan Khan (Alias Naseem Khan) v. Dilip Bhausaheb Lande & Ors.
- Court: Bombay High Court – Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
- Bench: Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan
- Date of Judgment: 7 March 2026
- Case: Election Petition No. 9 of 2025
Background of the Election Dispute
The Bombay High Court has rejected an election petition filed by former candidate Md. Arif Lalan Khan, who challenged the victory of Dilip Bhausaheb Lande from the Chandivali Assembly Constituency (No. 168), Mumbai in the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election.
Khan, who was the runner-up in the election, lost to Lande by a margin of 20,625 votes, with Lande securing 1,24,641 votes while Khan received 1,04,016 votes.
The petition sought two principal reliefs:
- Setting aside Lande’s election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Declaring Khan as the elected candidate under Section 101 of the Act.
However, during the hearing, Khan chose not to press the request seeking a declaration that he himself be declared the winner.
The petition was challenged by Lande through an application seeking rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that it did not disclose a valid cause of action or material facts.
Grounds of Challenge Raised in the Election Petition
The election challenge was built around three primary allegations.
#1 Alleged Campaign by Chief Minister During Silent Period
The petitioner alleged that on polling day (20 November 2024) at 3:08 PM, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Eknath Shinde, visited the Chandivali constituency and participated in what was effectively a road show and campaign rally along Kajupada Pipeline Road.
According to the petition, the visit involved:
- Public canvassing and appeals for votes for Lande.
- Waving to crowds and displaying support.
- Circulation of photos and videos of the event on social media.
The petitioner claimed this activity occurred within the 48-hour “silent period” before the close of polling, which is prohibited under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act and the Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct.
The petition argued that the alleged campaign took place near five polling stations, thereby influencing voters in the vicinity.
#2 Alleged Misleading Disclosures in Form 26 Affidavit
The second allegation concerned the candidate disclosure affidavit (Form 26) submitted by Lande under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
The petitioner claimed that:
- Lande listed 11 cases, including several civil disputes, in the section meant for criminal cases.
- This allegedly created a misleading impression regarding his legal background.
- The affidavit also allegedly omitted details of a residential property where Lande had lived for decades.
According to the petitioner, such omissions and disclosures misled voters regarding the candidate’s credibility and background.
#3 Allegation of EVM Tampering
The third ground raised an apprehension of tampering with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The petitioner claimed that:
- A request had been made to authorities for verification of 20 EVM sets.
- Fees of ₹9,44,000 were deposited for this verification.
- The challenge to the election result would also depend on the outcome of this technical verification.
Legal Framework Considered by the Court
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan examined the allegations under the framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly:
- Section 83 – requirement to plead material facts in an election petition.
- Section 123(2) – defining corrupt practice through undue influence.
- Section 126 – prohibition of campaign activities during the 48-hour silent period.
- Section 100 – grounds for declaring an election void.
The Court emphasized that election petitions are strictly regulated proceedings and must disclose complete material facts constituting a cause of action.
Court’s Observations on “Undue Influence”
The Court closely examined whether the alleged visit of the Chief Minister could amount to “undue influence” under Section 123(2).
Justice Sundaresan explained that “undue influence” requires interference with the free exercise of electoral choice, such as:
- threats,
- coercion,
- inducements,
- intimidation,
- or manipulation that substitutes a voter’s free will.
The Court observed:
“For the visit by Shinde during prohibited campaign hours to constitute undue influence, the pleadings ought to show how the visit disrupted what would have been the ordinary exercise of electoral will.”
The petition, however, only alleged influence, not undue influence.
The Court noted that the pleadings did not indicate:
- threats,
- inducements,
- coercion,
- or any conduct that interfered with voters’ free choice.
Instead, the allegations suggested only that the visit energised supporters or canvassed votes, which may constitute campaigning but not necessarily corrupt practice.
The judgment observed that:
“Energising loyalists who would be enthused by the star campaigner’s presence would indicate the deployment of influence and not the deployment of undue influence.”
Violation of the Silent Period Not Automatically a Corrupt Practice
The Court acknowledged that if the allegations were true, the conduct could amount to a violation of Section 126, which prohibits election campaigning during the silent period.
However, the Court clarified that:
- Section 126 violations carry criminal penalties.
- Such violations do not automatically amount to “corrupt practices” capable of voiding an election under Section 100.
The judgment emphasized that criminal sanctions and election annulment operate through separate legal mechanisms.
Lack of Pleadings Showing “Material Effect” on Result
For a court to void an election due to non-compliance with election law under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), the petitioner must show that the violation materially affected the election result.
Justice Sundaresan found that the petition failed to do so.
The only assertion made by the petitioner was that:
“but for the visit, the petitioner would have obtained majority of valid votes.”
The Court held that such a bald assertion was insufficient to establish material effect.
The judgment stressed that material facts must show how the alleged violation altered the electoral outcome, which the petition failed to demonstrate.
Findings on Form 26 Affidavit Allegations
The Court also examined the claim that Lande’s disclosure affidavit misled voters.
It held that the allegation did not establish any corrupt practice or actionable electoral violation.
The Court observed that merely including additional civil cases in disclosures cannot be treated as misleading in a manner capable of invalidating an election.
Findings on EVM Tampering Allegations
The Court found the EVM allegation to be entirely speculative.
The petition merely stated that verification of EVMs had been requested and that the petitioner suspected tampering.
The Court noted that such vague apprehensions cannot constitute material facts required for an election petition.
Final Decision of the Court
After examining the pleadings and the legal requirements under the Representation of the People Act, the Bombay High Court concluded that:
- The election petition did not disclose a valid cause of action.
- It lacked the necessary material facts required under Section 83.
- The allegations were vague, speculative, or legally insufficient to invalidate an election.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application for rejection and dismissed the election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
