Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Election Petition Against Bhupesh Baghel

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana disposed of Baghel's appeal challenging the High Court's June 15 order, which had rejected his application seeking dismissal of the election petition on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action and failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).

Appearing for Baghel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the election petition itself was not maintainable in law.

Sibal submitted that the allegations against Baghel, even if accepted in their entirety, would only amount to an electoral offence under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits election campaigning during the 48-hour silence period, and not a "corrupt practice" under Section 123 of the Act.

"Section 126 is an electoral offence. It is not a corrupt practice. Corrupt practice is under Section 123," Sibal argued.

Referring to the facts of the case, Sibal submitted that polling campaign had concluded on November 15, 2023, while Baghel was alleged to have attended a religious function on November 16, which the petitioner claimed amounted to an unlawful roadshow violating the silence period.

He further contended that there was no question of the alleged act materially affecting the election result, pointing out that Baghel had secured victory by a margin of nearly 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. I am raising a question of law that Section 126 is an electoral offence; it is not a corrupt practice. He was the Chief Minister, he had Z+ security. Those were the people who went with him," Sibal submitted.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, observed that the question of whether the alleged violation had materially affected the election outcome could not be decided at the preliminary stage and would require evidence during trial.

"You say the assembly was so small, but we feel that this is the question which needs to be decided on evidence because if I carry a message to one, it can be given to another. Is it a secret meeting of 200 or is it a public meeting of 200?" Justice Bagchi remarked.

Sibal urged the Court to terminate the proceedings at the threshold, arguing that Baghel should not be compelled to undergo a full-fledged election trial when the allegations did not constitute a corrupt practice under the statute.

"Why should I go through trial when it is not a corrupt practice? It cannot materially affect; it is an electoral offence," Sibal argued.

Justice Bagchi responded that Baghel nevertheless had "an arguable case to defend."

Declining to interfere with the High Court's order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while expressly preserving Baghel's right to raise all objections before the election tribunal during the trial.

Background

The election petition was filed by BJP leader Vijay Baghel, who challenged Bhupesh Baghel's election from the Patan Assembly constituency in the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections.

The petition alleges that Bhupesh Baghel violated the mandatory 48-hour silence period under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by conducting a roadshow on November 16, 2023, a day before polling.

Bhupesh Baghel has consistently denied the allegations and has argued that the petition lacks material facts, fails to disclose any "corrupt practice," and does not satisfy the statutory requirements governing election petitions. He has also contended that the petition relies on electronic evidence without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, is supported by an invalid affidavit under Section 83 of the RP Act, and fails to implead necessary parties.

The Chhattisgarh High Court had earlier refused to dismiss the election petition at the threshold, prompting Baghel to approach the Supreme Court. With Friday's order, the apex court has allowed the election petition to proceed to trial while leaving all legal issues open for determination by the High Court's election tribunal.