Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Md. Nafis vs Nitin Jairam Gadkari on 30 April, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.5707 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 12480 of 2021)
MD. NAFIS … APPELLANT
Versus
NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5708-5709 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.12382-12383/2025 @ D.No.5691 of 2023)
NANA FALGUNRAO PATOLE AND ANR. … APPELLANTS
Versus
NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals are directed against the orders dated
26.02.2021, 17.12.2021 and 30.09.2022, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby various
averments made in the Election Petition Nos.10 of 2019 and 12 of
2019 have been ordered to be struck off pursuant to an application
under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC moved by respondent No.1 – the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.05.02
17:23:16 IST
returned candidate.
Reason:
3. Respondent No.1 was the returned candidate in the Lok Sabha
2
from Constituency No. 10, Nagpur, in the parliamentary elections
held in the year 2019. His election has been challenged in the
above-mentioned Election Petitions filed by; (i) some of the
contesting candidates; and (ii) by the voters of the constituency.
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the term of the
returned candidate, pursuant to 2019 elections, is already over
and, thereafter, fresh elections in the year 2024 have been held in
which respondent No.1 was again declared elected. Regardless
thereto, we have heard learned counsel for the parties at a
considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on
record.
5. The first averment that has been struck off by the High Court
as contained in para 7 of the Election Petitions pertained to
Khasra No.264 at village Dhapewada. The allegation was that the
returned candidate, in his affidavit, declared the property as
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) whereas he owned the same in his
personal capacity. The High Court, in para 9 of the impugned order
dated 26.02.2021, has explained that the Trust Deed was executed in
respect of the subject property on 29.10.1958 followed by a
Correction Deed executed on 01.08.1975. The property is mutated in
the name of the returned candidate, but he has always been claiming
it to be an HUF property. The question as to whether the subject
property constitutes HUF or not, cannot be gone into in the
Election Petition proceedings, as rightly held by the High Court.
6. This takes us to the next averment made in the Election
Petition to the fact that the agricultural land owned by spouse of
the returned candidate at village Dhapewada has not been correctly
3
descripted without mentioning as to whether it is situated in the
revenue estate of village Dhapewada (Khurd) or Dhapewada (Bujruk)
and, thus, the information was incomplete. The High Court has
directed to struck off this objection after taking notice of the
fact that the information furnished by the returned candidate is
not incomplete as the Survey Number and location of the land are
fully described. There is, thus, no concealment of any material
fact. We concur with the reasoning assigned by the High Court.
7. As regard to the third objection raised by the election
petitioner(s), namely, that the Income Tax Returns, appended by the
returned candidate, show his income less than the actual one, also
merited rejection as rightly done by the High Court. We say so for
the reason that once the Income Tax Returns have been appended, the
income reflected therein is the substantial compliance of Form 26.
It seems to us that the Returning Officer is required only to
verify as to whether the true copies of the Income Tax Returns
have been appended or not. Such duty to scrutinize the nomination
papers does not clothe him with the power to sit over the
assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities in exercise
of their quasi-judicial powers.
8. Similarly, the allegation of non-disclosure about the
Turmeric Boiler Plant by the returned candidate has rightly been
rejected by the High Court being vague and evasive which does not
specify the nature of allegations sought to be made.
9. Likewise, the fate of vague and wild allegations of
alleged benefit drawn by the returned candidate of more than 50
strokes in Mock trial on EVMs has rightly met with the same fate.
4
In any case, the allegations do not materially affect the outcome
of the election. Likewise, the attribution of non-disclosure of
election expenses or the same being in excess of the permissible
limits are too vague and wild that it is difficult for the Election
Tribunal-cum-High Court to render a definite opinion in relation
thereto.
10. In light of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders, passed by the High Court, warrant no
interference by this Court.
11. The Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
12. We are informed that the Election Petitions are still
pending before the High Court awaiting the outcome of these
proceedings. Since the matter pertains to Lok Sabha Election of
2019, we request the High Court to proceed with the pending
Election Petitions and dispose of the same expeditiously.
13. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also
stand disposed of.
......................………..J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….....………....J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.3 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).12480/2021
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-02-2021
in CAO No.753/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
at Nagpur]
MD. NAFIS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.98323/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.103684/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.103681/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 98323/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 103684/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 103681/2021 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
WITH
Diary No(s). 5691/2023 (IX)
Date : 30-04-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Shakul Ghatole, Adv.
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, AOR
Mr. Shakul Ghatole, Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR
Mr. Tathagata Dutta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv.
Mrs. Farah Hashmi, Adv.
Ms. Salonee Paranjape, Adv.
Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv.
Mrs. A.S. Jamuna, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
6Leave granted.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also
stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.)
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)