New Delhi, Aug 7 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision declining to reject, at the threshold, an election petition challenging former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel’s election from the Patan Assembly constituency in the 2023 state elections.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana dismissed Baghel’s special leave petition (SLP) challenging the June 15, 2026 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had held that the election petition was maintainable and should proceed to trial on the merits.
However, the Supreme Court granted Baghel liberty to raise all his legal and factual contentions during the trial of the election petition before the High Court, which is acting as the election tribunal.
The election petition, filed by BJP leader Vijay Baghel, alleges that Bhupesh Baghel violated the 48-hour “silence period” prescribed under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by conducting a roadshow on November 16, 2023, a day before polling for the Patan Assembly constituency.
Appearing for Bhupesh Baghel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the allegations, even if accepted, disclosed only an electoral offence under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act and not a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 warranting the election being declared void.
Sibal further argued that the alleged road show could not have materially affected the election result, pointing out that Baghel had won the Patan seat by a margin of around 20,000 votes. “There is no question of affecting the result. Allegation is that there were 200 people, but he won by 20,000 votes,” the senior counsel argued, adding that Baghel was the Chief Minister at the time and had Z+ security, with the persons accompanying him being security personnel.
Sibal urged the Supreme Court to intervene at the threshold, contending that Baghel should not be compelled to undergo a full-fledged election trial when the allegations did not disclose a corrupt practice. “Why should I go through trial when it is not a corrupt practice? It cannot materially affect; it is an electoral offence,” he submitted.
However, the CJI Kant-led Bench declined to interfere with the High Court’s order, with Justice Bagchi observing that Baghel had “an arguable case to defend.”
Earlier, the Chhattisgarh High Court, in its June 15 order, had similarly rejected Baghel’s plea seeking dismissal of the election petition at the preliminary stage and held that the issues raised by him largely involved questions of evidence which could not appropriately be decided without a trial.
The High Court had framed a preliminary issue on whether the election petition suffered from absence of necessary pleadings or non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act and, if so, whether it was liable to be dismissed. It held that the petition contained sufficient foundational facts to sustain a triable cause of action.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that the allegations regarding the alleged violation of the statutory silence period under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act were “specific enough to warrant a trial and cannot be discarded as vague or illusory”.
The High Court noted that the election petitioner had specifically pleaded that polling was scheduled to conclude on November 17, 2023, and consequently the 48-hour silence period under Section 126 commenced from 5 p.m. on November 15. It further recorded that the petition alleged that during the prohibited period, Baghel conducted a rally/road show within the constituency, raised election slogans through his supporters and sought votes in his favour.
The High Court also held that questions as to whether the alleged conduct constituted a corrupt practice, whether there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and whether the election result was materially affected were matters requiring appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.
“The objections raised by the respondent No.1 (Baghel) essentially pertain to the evidentiary value and proof of the allegations rather than the existence of a cause of action,” it had observed.
It further held that objections concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence, including the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, were matters to be considered at the stage of evidence and not a ground to non-suit the election petitioner without a trial.
“Election petition cannot be rejected at the threshold and is liable to proceed for adjudication on merits,” the High Court had ruled.
The Chhattisgarh High Court had accordingly rejected Baghel’s application seeking dismissal of the election petition as a preliminary issue, while clarifying that all his contentions regarding proof, admissibility and evidentiary value of documents and electronic records would remain open for consideration during the trial.
–IANS
pds/uk
