Bombay HC Dismisses Election Petition Against Shinde’s MP
Vichare alleged that Mhaske failed to disclose a prior criminal conviction in his affidavit, claiming this omission should invalidate the election. However, Mhaske argued that disclosure was not required as his conviction did not result in imprisonment of one year or more.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Rajan Vichare challenging the 2024 Lok Sabha election result from Thane. Vichare had lost the seat to Naresh Mhaske of the Shiv Sena faction led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
Vichare alleged that Mhaske failed to disclose a prior criminal conviction in his affidavit, claiming this omission should invalidate the election. However, Mhaske argued that disclosure was not required as his conviction did not result in imprisonment of one year or more.
In the 2024 polls, Mhaske secured 734,231 votes, defeating Vichare, who received 517,220 votes. Vichare’s petition sought to declare Mhaske’s election void and himself as the rightful winner.
Vichare contended that Mhaske had falsely claimed in his nomination papers that he had never been convicted, despite being found guilty in a riot-related case, with the Thane Sessions Court rejecting his appeal. He argued that candidates must disclose all pending criminal cases in their affidavits to keep voters informed.
Senior advocate Vikram Nankani, representing Mhaske, refuted the allegations and cited Supreme Court precedents during the hearing.
The Shiv Sena MP claimed that he was required to make the disclosure only if his conviction resulted in an imprisonment of one year or more. According to Mhaske, he was released on probation in the case with no imprisonment. The high court accepted this contention and said the election petition fails to disclose a cause of action.
The court accepted Mhaske’s argument and ruled that the petition did not disclose a valid cause of action. Justice Riyaz Chagla stated, “I have rejected the election petition on the ground that it fails to disclose the cause of action. It is suffering from an incurable defect and is barred by law.”
