A challenge to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari’s 2024 Lok Sabha win from Nagpur has been tossed out by the Bombay High Court, with judges making it clear: accusations without evidence are no match for the law.
Filed by Suraj Balram Mishra, the election petition tried to paint a picture of electoral foul play, claiming Gadkari’s party distributed customized voter slips that included Gadkari’s photo, name, and party symbol. The twist? These slips were allegedly generated using special software installed on devices given to polling booth workers.
The goal, Mishra argued, was to subtly steer votes towards Gadkari — a maneuver he said violated the Model Code of Conduct and amounted to corrupt practice.
But Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke wasn’t buying it.
In a sharply reasoned order, the Court noted the petition lacked any of the essential scaffolding required under election law — no names, no dates, no proof, no link tying Gadkari to the alleged tech trickery. Not only did the petitioner fail to identify who created the software or distributed the machines, he also couldn’t demonstrate how the supposed misconduct influenced the result.
The Court found the entire case to be based on “incomplete cause of action” and held that there was “no direct or indirect interference” by Gadkari in the election process.
According to the judgment, under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, an election petition must carry detailed facts — who did what, where, and how it impacted the outcome. This petition, the judge said, had none of that. Without specific, verifiable claims and without evidence tying the alleged misconduct to a material effect on the vote, the petition was legally hollow.
The final blow? The Court ordered that Mishra, who represented himself, must cover the costs incurred by Gadkari in fighting the petition.
With this dismissal, the Court has reinforced a critical reminder: when it comes to election challenges, speculation is no substitute for substance.
