The Delhi High Court, on February 4, 2025, dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Durgesh Pathak from the Rajinder Nagar assembly constituency in the 2022 by-polls. The petition, filed by independent candidate Ramesh Kumar Khatri, alleged financial irregularities in Pathak’s election expenditure. Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that the accusations did not meet the legal threshold for "corrupt practices" under the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951.
Read Also:- SC Grants Interim Police Protection to Discovery Channel Officials Amid Threats Over Asaram Bapu Documentary
Background of the Case
The 2022 by-election for Rajinder Nagar’s Assembly Constituency (AC-39) was held after former MLA Raghav Chadha resigned following his election to the Rajya Sabha. Pathak secured victory with 40,319 votes, while Khatri received only 22 votes. Khatri later filed a petition under the RP Act, seeking to nullify Pathak’s election and disqualify him for six years. He alleged that Pathak fabricated expenditure records and failed to disclose costs related to campaign materials, refreshments, and logistics.
Read Also:- Doctrine of Transmigration of Motive: Supreme Court's Explanation Under Section 301 IPC
Khatri’s petition claimed Pathak violated Sections 77(1) and 77(2) of the RP Act by:
Not maintaining a day-to-day expenditure register.
Concealing transactions, including ₹15 lakh deposited into his account on June 7, 2022, which allegedly funded unreported expenses.
Falsely declaring ₹20,000 cash-in-hand despite spending ₹10,310 on nomination formalities.
Pathak’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan, argued the petition lacked a valid cause of action. They emphasized that mere accounting discrepancies, without proof of exceeding expenditure limits, do not qualify as corrupt practices.
Justice Mini Pushkarna referenced Supreme Court precedents, including Dalchand Jain v. Narayan Shankar Trivedi and L.R. Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekhar, to underline the distinction between procedural lapses and corrupt practices.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Advocate-on-Record's Authority to Delegate Arguments
“Contravention of Sections 77(1) and 77(2) does not constitute corrupt practice unless the candidate exceeds prescribed expenditure limits under Section 77(3).”
— Delhi High Court Judgment
The court noted:
No Excess Expenditure: Pathak’s submitted accounts showed expenses below the Election Commission’s prescribed limit. Khatri failed to prove otherwise.
Insufficient Grounds: Non-maintenance of records, without evidence of overspending, cannot invalidate an election.
Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court has consistently held that incomplete accounts alone do not materially affect election outcomes.
