The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Rajan Vichare, seeking the cancellation of Thane MP Naresh Mhaske’s victory in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The court rejected the plea on the grounds that it “fails to disclose any cause of action.”
No Obligation to Disclose Conviction
Justice Riyaz Chagla ruled that Mhaske, of Eknath Sinde led Shiv Sena, was not obligated to disclose his conviction for a criminal offence, especially as the conviction did not result in imprisonment for more than one year. “Respondent No.1 (Vichare) was not required to disclose his conviction of a criminal offence, particularly where the conviction had not resulted in imprisonment of one year or more. The Election Petition accordingly fails to disclose a cause of action,” the court noted in its detailed 62-page judgment.
It added: “The Election Petition would suffer from an incurable defect and is barred by law on the face of the petition,” the court observed. It further stated that the failure to disclose the conviction was not grounds for nullifying Mhaske’s election.
Vichare had argued that Mhaske, in his nomination form, falsely stated that he had no prior convictions. Vichare claimed that Mhaske had been convicted in a rioting case, with the conviction upheld by the Thane Sessions Court. He argued that Mhaske’s failure to disclose this information misled voters and demanded that Mhaske’s election be declared “null and void.”
Vichare’s Argument
Senior advocates Darius Khambata and Pankaj Sawant, representing Vichare, contended that Mhaske’s omission of the conviction amounted to suppression of fact. “The disclosure in nomination is made so that voters know who they are voting for. This is a mandatory disclosure,” Vichare’s legal team argued, asserting that Mhaske’s decision to write “Not Applicable” in response to questions about past convictions was a deliberate act of concealment.
However, Mhaske’s counsel, Vikram Nankani, refuted these claims, calling for the dismissal of Vichare’s petition. Nankani argued that the plea lacked merit and sought to protect Mhaske’s election result.
Court’s Final Word
Ultimately, the court said that “the balance of convenience lies in favour of the successful candidate” and dismissed Vichare’s election challenge.
