The Bombay High Court at its Kolhapur Circuit Bench has rejected the election petition filed by Vinayak Bhaurao Raut challenging the 2024 Lok Sabha election result from the Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg constituency. Justice Shailesh P. Brahme held that the petition did not contain the material facts and particulars required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The order was pronounced on September 29, 2026, after the Court considered the rival submissions on an application filed by returned candidate Narayan Tatu Rane seeking rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Background
Raut and Rane had contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election from the 46-Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg constituency. Rane secured 4,48,514 votes, while Raut received 4,00,656 votes. Raut subsequently filed an election petition challenging the election on several grounds, including allegations relating to campaigning after the permitted campaign period and alleged bribery and influence over voters.
Rane argued that the relevant pleadings were vague and failed to provide essential details such as the identity of persons involved, time and place of the alleged incidents. Raut opposed the application, maintaining that the allegations were supported by documents, videos, newspaper reports and affidavits and should be examined at a full trial.
Justice Brahme examined paragraphs 5(l) to 5(n) of the election petition and found significant deficiencies. According to the Court, the allegations concerning campaigning on May 6, 2024 did not specify the time, place or identities of the persons allegedly involved. The allegations concerning bribery also lacked details about the person, amount, time and place.
The Court emphasised that documents and video recordings could not fill the basic gaps in the pleadings.
“In the absence of the requisite pleadings, the documents would not be sufficient to fill up the lacuna. The respondent no.1 should have furnished transcription of contents of pen drive.”
At the same time, the Court distinguished the objections concerning defective affidavits, translations and verification. It held that those defects, by themselves, were curable and were not sufficient to terminate the petition.
The Court ultimately held that the election petition failed to comply with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and did not disclose a sufficient cause of action. Justice Brahme therefore allowed the application filed by Rane and rejected Election Petition No. 7 of 2024 at the threshold.
The Court also directed that there would be no order as to costs.
