The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the election petition filed by Congress leader Prakash Mangilal Sharma, who challenged the election of BJP MLA Bhagwandas Sahbnani from the Bhopal Dakshin-Paschim Assembly seat, claiming that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were tampered with during polling.
Justice Vishal Dhagat, while pronouncing the order on April 2, 2025, stated:
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Urges State to Speed Up Arbitration Tribunal Appointments Amid Long Delays
“Sections 81, 83, and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be read together. A petition that does not provide full details under Sections 83 and 100 can be dismissed under Section 86.”
Sharma filed the petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Act, citing that the EVM batteries showed unusually high power levels—some at 99% and others at 80%—even after a full day of usage. He argued that this indicated tampering and claimed the respondent used the support of the state machinery to manipulate the machines. These, he alleged, amounted to corrupt practices.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Principal’s Appointment Over Violation of Seniority Rule
However, the Court found the petition lacking in specific details. Justice Dhagat noted:
“There were no clear allegations against any individual who allegedly had access to the EVMs. The claim that the State Machinery acted in support of the respondent was not backed by facts.”
The respondent’s counsel argued that under Section 83 of the Act, an election petition must include full material facts. The petition, however, only included vague and general accusations, failing to name anyone or explain how the machines were tampered with. It also lacked details such as whether the machines were sealed or how the battery issue suggested corruption.
In response, Sharma’s counsel said that the petition should not be dismissed for lacking detail under Section 83 since Section 86 allows dismissal only for violations of Sections 81, 82, or 117. He also insisted that EVMs are sealed and cannot be accessed or charged during elections—suggesting manipulation.
Yet, the Court highlighted that these claims were made orally and not stated in the petition itself. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar, the judge emphasized:
“In election matters, pleadings must be precise and specific. Vague allegations without material facts cannot stand legal scrutiny.”
The Court further observed that the petition did not meet the legal standard for claims under Sections 100 and 101 of the Act, which define the grounds for declaring an election void. Since the petitioner failed to provide necessary factual support, the Court allowed the respondent’s request under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code to dismiss the petition at the initial stage.
The petition, therefore, was dismissed.
Case Title: P C Shamra (Prakash Mangilal Sharma) Versus Shri Bhagwandas Sahbnani, Election Petition No. 15 Of 2024
