Mere Procedural Regularities Are Not Sufficient To Declare An Election Void: Patna HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of JDU MLA Dilip Ray

The Patna High Court dismissed a petition by Syed Abu Dojana, challenging the election of JDU's Dilip Ray as a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar observed that, "The law as to the disqualification of a candidate demands that there must be substantial noncompliance of statuary provisions. Mere procedural regularities are not sufficient to declare an election void. However, if such irregularities lead to corruption, an election may be declared void."

Syed Abu Dojana, the election petitioner, contested the election from the Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD) party and was the runner-up. He challenged the election of Dilip Ray (respondent no.1) under Sections 80, 80-A, 81, and 100 of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951 (RPA).

The petitioner claimed that Ray was disqualified for three reasons: (i) suppression of information about his and his wife's assets, (ii) failure to publish his criminal antecedents, and (iii) improper counting of votes.

Suppression of Assets

The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish that the candidate had suppressed any material information regarding his assets or his wife's assets in the affidavit filed with his nomination paper. The Court noted that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to show that the non-disclosure materially affected the election result. The Court found that minor discrepancies in the description of the plots did not amount to suppression, especially since the total area of the land remained consistent.

Failure to Publish Criminal Antecedents

The Court ruled that the candidate had met his obligation to publish his criminal antecedents as required by law. The Court accepted documentary evidence submitted by the candidate which included publication in a newspaper and an invoice from a news channel.

Improper Vote Counting

The Court rejected the petitioner's claims of irregularities in vote counting, finding that these alleged irregularities were not procedural violations and did not materially affect the election result. The Court emphasized that a mere irregularity is not sufficient to invalidate an election.

In its judgment, the Court cited several precedents including Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari and Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang to reiterate that the petitioner must not only prove a violation but also demonstrate that the violation materially impacted the election outcome.

Cause Title: Syed Abu Dojana vs Dilip Ray & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment