Bombay high court dismisses petition challenging Narendra Mehta’s election victory | Mumbai News

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition that challenged the victory of BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Narendra Mehta, 54, in the 2024 polls from Mira-Bhayandar constituency in Maharashtra. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh held that the petition by Nayana Vasani lacks necessary specific details mandated under law when challenging an election.Mehta, declared elected on Nov 23, 2024 as MLA of the Mira-Bhayander constituency, through his advocate Amogh Singh, argued for dismissal of the petition filed last year.Balkrishna Joshi, Vasani’s counsel, argued for quashing of the election on two grounds, one of which was “improper acceptance” of Mehta’s nomination over “suppression of criminal cases” pending against him and non-disclosure of details of assets, which constitutes corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act.The HC, in a detailed 29-page ruling, said the law requires specifics of the allegations against the elected representative. “The burden is necessarily on the party who approaches the Court seeking the relief that the election be declared void. There is no right to challenge the election outside the statute and there has to be strict compliance of the statutory provisions,” said Justice Deshmukh, adding that the petitioner is not only required to point out the suppression and the elected representative tasked with furnishing the necessary details. “Absence of material facts to substantiate the suppression would constitute non-compliance of Section 83(1)(b) of RP Act. Non-disclosure of a cause of action would entail rejection of the petition.”The HC held that the election petition was “bereft” of pleadings that demonstrate improper acceptance of the nomination form affected the poll result.The petition against Mehta said he suppressed two FIRs for 2020 and 2022. Mehta’s counsel argued that the law requires disclosure of criminal offences in which charge has been framed by a court or where there is conviction. The HC said the petition “falls short of the specific pleading in order to constitute cause of action for corrupt practice. Section 83(1)(b) demands furnishing of full particulars of corrupt practice. As to what would constitute material facts in case of corrupt practice would depend on facts of each case and in present case, considering that Form 26 prescribed furnishing of details of pending criminal cases, it was necessary to plead about the status of the two FIRs and to produce material to demonstrate the pendency of the two FIRs on the date of filing of affidavit. The petition does not even contain a bare assertion that two FIRs are pending against the applicant, leave aside setting out the status of the FIRs to show pendency.”