Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Dismiss BJP Leader’s Plea Challenging Congress MLA’s Election

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to reject an election petition challenging the victory of Congress candidate Abhay Kumar Mishra from the Semariya Assembly constituency, holding that allegations of suppression of material information in nomination papers raise “triable issues” that cannot be dismissed at the threshold.

Justice Vinay Saraf, while dismissing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed that the court’s inquiry at this stage is limited to examining whether the petition discloses a cause of action, and not whether the allegations are ultimately true. The ruling came in an election petition filed by BJP candidate Krishna Pati Tripathi, who lost the 2023 Assembly election by a margin of 637 votes.

The petitioner had alleged that Mishra failed to disclose material particulars in his affidavit filed along with the nomination form, including criminal antecedents, financial liabilities, and details of income sources. It was argued that such non-disclosure materially affected the election result and violated statutory requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

On the issue of criminal antecedents, the petition claimed that multiple criminal cases had been registered against the returned candidate in the past, yet the affidavit mentioned “Not Applicable.” The respondent, however, contended that all such cases had ended in acquittal and no case was pending at the time of nomination, thereby negating any obligation to disclose them.

The High court noted that the existence of past criminal cases was not in dispute and that whether their non-disclosure amounted to a statutory violation was a matter requiring evidence. It emphasized that at the stage of deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the defence of the returned candidate cannot be considered.

Similarly, with respect to alleged non-disclosure of financial liabilities, the petitioner relied on a loan account statement from ICICI Bank indicating outstanding dues exceeding Rs. 50 lakh. The respondent argued that the loan had been taken by a partnership firm and not in his personal capacity, and that he had retired from the firm years earlier. The court, however, found that the existence of the loan and outstanding amount was not denied, and whether it constituted a personal liability requiring disclosure was again a matter for trial.

The petition also raised concerns about incomplete disclosure of income sources, pointing out that while the respondent mentioned receiving salary from private companies, he failed to identify them. In response, it was submitted that the respondent had resigned from such companies prior to filing nomination papers. The court held that these explanations form part of the defence and cannot be evaluated at the preliminary stage.

Rejecting the respondent’s plea that the petition was vexatious and devoid of cause of action, the court reiterated settled principles governing Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It observed that “if the allegations in the petition prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true or not.”

Importantly, the court underscored the voter’s right to know the antecedents of candidates, noting that disclosure requirements serve the democratic purpose of enabling informed electoral choices. It remarked that suppression of material information, if established, could amount to interference with the free exercise of electoral rights and may even vitiate the election.

Finding that the petition contained specific averments supported by documents and raised issues requiring adjudication, the court concluded that it could not be termed “manifestly vexatious.” It held, “this is not a fit case to exercise powers under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC,” and dismissed the application seeking rejection of the petition.

The High court has now granted the respondent four weeks to file a written statement, with the matter to be listed thereafter for further proceedings.

Case Title: Krishna Pati Tripathi v. Abhay Kumar Mishra

Date of Order: March 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Vinay Saraf