Bombay High Court Upholds BJP MLA Rajendra Gavit’s Election, Cites Tribal Custom Permitting Polygamy
The Bombay High Court has upheld the election of BJP MLA Rajendra Gavit from the Palghar constituency, rejecting a plea that challenged the validity of his nomination on the ground of alleged defects arising from the disclosure of a second spouse in his election affidavit.
Justice Sandeep Marne, while dismissing the petition filed by voter and social activist Sudhir Jain, held that Gavit had made a "true and honest disclosure" in his affidavit by mentioning details of both spouses, including their Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) and the status of their income tax filings.
The Court found no violation of the Representation of the People Act or the Conduct of Election Rules.
The petitioner had contended that the inclusion of the name of Gavit's second wife, Rupali Gavit, rendered the affidavit false, arguing that such a marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
However, the Court observed that Gavit belongs to the Bhil tribal community, which is governed by customary practices that allow polygamy and therefore the Hindu Marriage Act's monogamy requirement was inapplicable in this context.
Crucially, the Court noted that the election affidavit did not become defective merely because Gavit disclosed information not expressly mandated in the form. “The act of the candidate of adding a column in the form to make true and honest disclosure of information would neither render the nomination form defective nor would amount to violation of provisions of the Election Rules,” the Court said.
Court also clarified that there is no bar under election law preventing a candidate from disclosing the existence of multiple spouses if such relationships are recognised by personal or customary law. It was emphasised that election affidavits are meant to ensure transparency and that voluntary, truthful disclosure should not be penalised.
In disposing of the petition, the High Court affirmed that candidates from communities where polygamy is permitted by custom or religion cannot be disqualified solely on that basis. The judgment reiterates the principle that personal laws and customs may influence the interpretation of statutory provisions in election-related disputes.