The Bombay High Court has held that an election cannot be invalidated under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, merely because a candidate disclosed a second marriage by adding an extra column in their election affidavit.

Justice Sandeep Marne passed the ruling while dismissing a plea challenging the election of Palghar MLA Rajendra Gavit in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. The plea was filed by Sudhir Brijendra Jain, a voter and social activist from the Palghar constituency, who alleged that Gavit’s declaration of a “Spouse No. 2” in Form 26—Rupali Gavit—was misleading and amounted to a corrupt practice since bigamy is prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Jain argued that this disclosure was made to sway Scheduled Tribe voters in the reserved constituency, as Rupali Gavit belonged to the tribal community. He invoked Section 123(4) and Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act, seeking to have the election declared void for making a false statement to gain electoral advantage.

The Court, however, found no merit in the claim. Justice Marne observed that merely adding a column in the affidavit to disclose a second marriage did not constitute a corrupt practice. Crucially, the Court noted that Jain had himself acknowledged in his petition that Rupali Gavit was the second wife of the respondent.

“In order to establish a false declaration, the petitioner needed to assert that no such marriage took place. On the contrary, the petition acknowledges the existence of the second marriage,” the Court said.

The Court also pointed out that withholding such information could itself form a valid ground to challenge an election under Section 100 of the Act. It clarified that there was no breach of election rules in truthfully disclosing PAN details and income tax status of the second spouse.

Citing instances where candidates belonging to communities permitting polygamy have declared multiple spouses, the Court cautioned that disallowing additional columns in affidavits would effectively bar such candidates from contesting elections.

Accordingly, the Court allowed Gavit’s application and dismissed the election petition.

Senior Advocate Neeta Karnik, along with advocates Jimmy Mates Gonsalves, Shrirang P. Katneshwarkar, Kallies Albert Alphanso, and Sandeep Gupta, appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Nitin Gangal, with a team including Chandrakant Y. Tanawde, Namita Mestry, Prapti Karkera, Diksha Patil, Pramod B. Jedhe, Naresh B. Patil, and Milind Choudhari, represented Gavit.