Introduction:

In a significant judgment delivered on June 23, 2025, in Election Petition No. 3 of 2025, the Bombay High Court, through a detailed 36-page order authored by Justice Sandeep Marne, addressed critical questions relating to the validity of disclosures made in the Form 26 affidavit submitted with nomination papers, especially in the context of a polygamous marriage. The Court was hearing an election petition filed by Sudhir Brijendra Jain, a social activist and voter from the Palghar constituency, challenging the election of Rajendra Dhedya Gavit, a Shiv Sena candidate, to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly. Jain’s petition alleged that Gavit’s addition of a separate column in the affidavit to declare the income and tax details of his second wife was illegal and misleading, and as such, constituted a ground for disqualification under Section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner argued that the Form 26 affidavit prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, only permits disclosure about one spouse. By introducing an extra column for a second wife—who, according to the petitioner, was married in contravention of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Gavit had violated the prescribed format and attempted to mislead the Election Commission and the electorate, warranting setting aside of his election. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that even if Gavit’s marriage to his second wife was recognized within his community, the law of the land did not permit polygamy for Hindus and therefore such a disclosure was per se fraudulent and constituted false information.

Arguments;

Represented by Senior Advocate Neeta Karnik along with a team of advocates including Jimmy Mates Gonsalves and Shrirang Katneshwarkar, Jain relied on the binding nature of statutory forms and the supposed impermissibility of making structural alterations to them. The counsel argued that election law demands strict compliance with all procedural mandates and that deviation from prescribed affidavit formats, especially by adding additional columns to reflect relationships that are allegedly void under personal laws, undermines the sanctity of the electoral process. The petitioner also insisted that the second marriage itself was invalid, and therefore its disclosure constituted acknowledgment of an illegality. Such a disclosure, they said, should have invited consequences rather than immunity.

On the other hand, Rajendra Gavit, defended by a legal team including Advocates Nitin Gangal, Chandrakant Y Tanawde, Namita Mestry, and others, submitted that he belonged to the Bhil tribal community, where polygamy is an accepted custom. He argued that he had made a truthful and complete disclosure of his familial and financial circumstances, including both spouses’ PAN details and tax filing status, in good faith and with full transparency. It was their contention that Form 26 is intended to collect financial and criminal background information for voter awareness and transparency, and that inclusion of truthful information—even if it exceeds the form’s column structure—serves the public interest rather than violates any law. His counsel stressed that there was no falsity in the disclosure; rather, non-disclosure would have triggered legitimate grounds under Section 100 of the Act. Thus, there was no improper acceptance of the nomination form and no misleading declaration as claimed by the petitioner.

Judgement:

Justice Marne, rejecting the challenge, clarified the central issue before the Court: whether the addition of a column in Form 26 to declare the second spouse’s income and tax details, by a candidate belonging to a community that permits polygamy, constituted a violation of election law warranting disqualification or unseating. The Court held that the answer was emphatically in the negative. The judge reasoned that if candidates were disallowed from disclosing details about additional spouses in communities or religions where polygamy is practiced or permitted, such candidates would be rendered ineligible to contest elections altogether. This, the Court warned, would be an absurd and unconstitutional outcome. The Court clarified that Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, mandates the disclosure of certain personal and financial information, but the addition of factual details beyond the required content does not ipso facto amount to a violation. In fact, it reinforces transparency.

Justice Marne further explained that it was not necessary for the Court to enter into the question of whether the second marriage was valid or lawful under the Hindu Marriage Act, since the petitioner himself had not averred that the marriage did not occur. On the contrary, the petition admitted in paragraph 10(d) that Gavit was married to Rupali Gavit as his second wife. The judge emphasized that a ground of false declaration under Section 100(1)(d) or any other clause of Section 100 requires a specific allegation that the declaration was false in substance, and not merely because it includes information that goes beyond the form. Mere formal deviation from a prescribed affidavit layout, especially in a manner that increases the transparency of financial disclosures, cannot be equated to fraud or misrepresentation.

The Court also reasoned that there was no evidence or allegation to demonstrate how the act of disclosing PAN and IT return status of the second wife undermined the fairness of the election or constituted improper acceptance of the nomination under Section 100(1)(d)(i). There was no material on record to prove that the Election Officer was misled or that other candidates were prejudiced. Additionally, the Court noted that had Gavit not disclosed the details of his second spouse, he may have legitimately faced disqualification under the ground of suppression or misrepresentation. Thus, the conduct of Gavit was not only compliant with the spirit of electoral law but also consistent with the constitutional values of honesty and transparency.

In concluding the judgment, Justice Marne rejected the argument that permitting such disclosures would open the door to validation of unlawful or void marriages under personal law. The Court clarified that the scope of electoral law and Form 26 was limited to gathering disclosures for public scrutiny and that such forms are not to be used as a tool to determine matrimonial validity. “In order to make out a ground of making false statement in the nomination form, it was necessary for the Petitioner to aver in the petition that marriage between Respondent and Rupali Gavit has never occurred,” the Court stated. In the absence of such a pleading, and given the factual admission of the second marriage, no case of falsehood or fraud was made out. The judge opined that the petition did not disclose any material particulars that could support the cause of action or sustain the election petition under Section 100 of the Act, and thus deserved dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Accordingly, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the election of Rajendra Gavit, while reinforcing the principle that transparency, even in excess of statutory requirements, does not warrant punishment under election law. The judgment marks a significant precedent in aligning electoral disclosures with cultural and religious diversity, without compromising the legality of the election process.