Allegations of Non-Compliance with RP Act and Concealment Dismissed Due to Lack of Material Facts
In a significant judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition filed by Pratap Chandra against Manish Sisodia, challenging the latter's election from AC-57, Patparganj in the 2020 Legislative Assembly Elections. The case was presided over by Justice Jasmeet Singh.
The petitioner, Pratap Chandra, contested the election on the grounds of alleged violations of Section 126 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, citing unauthorized campaigning during the prohibited period and concealment of an FIR in the nomination affidavit by the respondent, Manish Sisodia. However, the court found the petition lacking in material facts necessary to establish a cause of action under the RP Act.
Justice Singh emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with statutory requirements when challenging an election. The court noted that the petition failed to demonstrate how the alleged violations materially affected the election outcome. It was highlighted that general allegations and vague pleadings without specific details do not suffice under the RP Act.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the obligation to disclose criminal cases under Section 33A of the RP Act arises only when charges have been framed or cognizance of the offence has been taken by a competent court. Merely registering an FIR does not trigger the disclosure requirement.
The petition was dismissed for non-compliance with Sections 81, 83, and 100 of the RP Act, along with a lack of cause of action. The court reiterated that election petitions require precise and specific pleadings and that any deviation from the procedural mandate can lead to dismissal.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's approach towards maintaining the sanctity of electoral processes and the importance of adhering to statutory provisions when contesting election outcomes.
Bottom Line:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Election petitions must strictly comply with the statutory requirements under Section 83 of the Act and Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, failing which they are liable to be dismissed.
Statutory provision(s): Section 33A, Section 83, Section 100, Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Pratap Chandra v. Mr. Manish Sisodia, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2840003
