Absence of material facts showing "undue influence" and "material effect" warrants rejection of election petition.

The Petitioner, Md. Arif Lalan Khan, challenged the election of Respondent No. 1, Dilip Bhausaheb Lande, from the Chandivali Assembly Constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly elections.

Khan lost by a margin of 20,625 votes.

The challenge was based on three grounds: (i) a "road show" conducted by Star Campaigner Eknath Shinde during the 48-hour prohibited silent period;

(ii) Lande’s Form 26 Affidavit contained excessive details of civil cases, allegedly to mislead voters regarding his criminal record, and suppressed residential asset details;

and (iii) apprehensions of EVM tampering.

Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the petition, arguing it lacked material facts and failed to disclose a cause of action.

The Court primarily applied Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices.

It relied on Section 123(2) regarding "undue influence" and Section 126 regarding prohibited campaign periods.

The Court followed the "materially affected" standard under Section 100(1)(d).

Key precedents included Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, establishing that omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action.

Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, holding that mere non-compliance is insufficient unless it is pleaded and proved that the result was materially affected.

Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, defining undue influence as a "tyranny over the mind" rather than mere legitimate canvassing.

The Court reasoned that "influence" is distinct from "undue influence"; the petition alleged that Shinde’s visit influenced voters but failed to plead any element of threat, coercion, or subversion of free will necessary to satisfy Section 123(2).

Regarding the violation of Section 126 (silent period), the Court held that while this might be a criminal offence, it only voids an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) if the petitioner pleads facts showing the result was "materially affected".

The Court found Khan’s pleading—a "bald averment" that he would have won but for the visit—legally insufficient to meet the rigours of Section 83, especially given the 20,625-vote margin.

Similarly, the Court found that disclosing "excessive" civil info in Form 26 is not a corrupt practice, and the EVM tampering claim was based on mere apprehension without linking it to a specific cause of action.

It held that the petition failed to disclose a cause of action as it lacked material facts explaining how the alleged irregularities constituted "undue influence" or "materially affected" the election outcome.

The Court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice any separate criminal proceedings for the alleged violation of Section 126, nor does it obstruct the Petitioner’s right to a random EVM check as permitted by Supreme Court guidelines.