Supreme Court Seeks Nilesh Lanke's Reply On Sujay Vikhe-Patil’s 2024 Lok Sabha Election Challenge

The Supreme Court has sought a response from MP Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke (NCP Sharadchandra Pawar) on a plea filed by BJP leader Sujay Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil, challenging Lanke’s election from Maharashtra’s Ahmednagar Lok Sabha constituency in the 2024 general elections.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice on Vikhe-Patil’s challenge to the Bombay High Court’s April 8, 2026 order, by which the election petition against Lanke had been dismissed at the preliminary stage.

Senior Advocate N.K. Kaul, appearing for Vikhe-Patil, submitted before court today that the election dispute had already progressed substantially and involved issues that could only be determined after a trial. He argued that a “mini trial” had effectively taken place and that the election petition should not have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Kaul also requested that the notice be made returnable on a fixed date, pointing out that Lanke would continue to hold office while the proceedings remained pending. CJI Kant indicated that a returnable date would be provided.

The election dispute

Lanke and Vikhe-Patil contested the Ahmednagar Lok Sabha seat in the 2024 general election. Lanke, who contested on the NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) ticket, was declared elected on June 4, 2024.

Lanke secured 6,24,797 votes, while Vikhe-Patil polled 5,95,868 votes, giving Lanke a margin of 28,929 votes. Vikhe-Patil subsequently approached the Bombay High Court challenging Lanke’s election. His petition alleged, among other things, corrupt electoral practices, excessive election expenditure, non-disclosure of certain expenses, bogus or duplicate voting and irregularities concerning verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

The petition invoked provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including Sections 123(4) and 123(6), dealing with corrupt practices, and Section 100 concerning grounds on which an election may be declared void.

Bombay High Court's dismissal of election petition

Lanke had sought dismissal of the election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the allegations did not disclose a proper cause of action and lacked the particulars required in an election petition.

The Bombay High Court, in its April 8, 2026 order, accepted Lanke’s application and dismissed Vikhe-Patil’s election petition. The High Court found that the allegations relating to corrupt practices were vague and non-specific and that the petition did not disclose sufficient material facts to warrant a trial.

The High Court also considered objections concerning limitation, the form of the affidavit, alleged defects in the pleadings and other procedural requirements under the Representation of the People Act.

Case Title: SUJAY RADHAKRISHNA VIKHE-PATIL Vs NILESH DYANDEV LANKE

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: September 24, 2026