In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court dismissed two special leave petitions that challenged a 2021 Bombay High Court order which had struck off certain allegations made against Union Minister Nitin Jairam Gadkari in an election petition concerning the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
The petitions were filed by Nafis Khan, a voter from the Nagpur constituency, and by candidates who had contested against Gadkari. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.
The Supreme Court noted that Gadkari’s 2019 tenure had already ended and he had since been re-elected in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The Court, after hearing both sides, found no reason to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s decision.
“There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order,” the bench stated.
The Bombay High Court had earlier refused to entirely dismiss the election petition. However, it had allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which allows courts to strike off any part of the pleadings that are irrelevant, scandalous, or unnecessary.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Civil Suit Alone No Ground to Quash FIR in Criminal Cases
Based on this, the High Court deleted several paragraphs in the petition which dealt with allegations about the income of Gadkari’s family and land owned by them, as well as election expenditure during the 2019 general elections.
“The election petition would proceed for trial on the basis of the averments that remain after the paragraphs as directed to be struck off are so struck off,” the Bombay High Court had ruled.
The background of the case goes back to accusations made by Nafis Khan under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Khan claimed that Gadkari submitted false information in his nomination papers and election affidavit.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Directs Inclusive eKYC Norms, Recognises Digital Access as Fundamental Right
The Bombay High Court acknowledged two core allegations—one concerning land owned solely by Gadkari and the other about agricultural income declared as his primary source of income—as significant enough to proceed with. However, other parts of the petition were dismissed.
“As a result of this adjudication, the prayer made in Civil Application No. 12/2021 seeking rejection of the election petition cannot be granted,” the Court had observed.
Challenging the High Court’s order, Khan argued in the Supreme Court that the struck-down portions did raise important legal questions and should not have been removed. He insisted that the power to strike pleadings is extraordinary and must be used sparingly.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: Set-Off Period Cannot Be Considered for Remission Calculation
He relied on previous Supreme Court judgments such as Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Tota Singh (2006) and Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba (1994), asserting that even if a case appears weak, it should not be dismissed if it discloses a valid cause of action.
In 2023, the Supreme Court, through a Division Bench led by Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha, had issued a notice only on the limited question of whether the High Court was correct in striking the allegations.
“The court must act with extreme care, caution, and circumspection while exercising powers under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC,” Khan argued through his counsel.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: In Cross-FIR Cases, Both Must Be Investigated Together-Unfair to Quash Only One
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court sided with the High Court, effectively putting an end to the challenge.
Appearance:
- Advocate Shakul Ghatole and AoR Pai Amit represented the petitioners.
- Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade appeared for the respondent, Nitin Gadkari.
Case Title: MD. Nafis v. Nitin Jairam Gadkari, SLP(C) No.12480/2021 and connected matters.
