MD. NAFIS v. NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI, 2025
The case deals with the limited scope of judicial intervention in striking out election petition pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC when immaterial or prejudicial to the proceedings.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
30 April 2025
Judges
Justice Surya Kant ⦁ Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Nafis Khan, a voter, and others challenged Nitin Gadkari’s election (2019 Lok Sabha polls) alleging he furnished false information in his nomination and affidavit.
-
The Bombay High Court did not quash the entire election petition but struck off certain paragraphs dealing with allegations about the income and land owned by Gadkari’s family and election expenditure, under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC.
-
The Supreme Court was approached via Special Leave Petitions challenging the High Court’s partial allowance of Gadkari’s application to strike pleadings.
Issues
-
Whether the High Court erred in striking off specific pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC?
-
Whether such pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action and were fit to proceed to trial?
-
Whether the striking of pleadings was done with appropriate judicial caution and restraint, as required?
Held
-
It was held that not all allegations are protected merely because they form part of a petition; only those disclosing material facts or cause of action are essential to retain.
-
The High Courts are empowered to strike down irrelevant or prejudicial pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC.
-
The Delay in deciding such challenges does not automatically reinstate all pleadings.
-
The election petition can continue based on remaining valid allegations that there is no need to restore the struck-off content.
Analysis
-
The ruling reinforces that judicial scrutiny of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 is permissible where specific allegations are immaterial or vexatious.
-
The Supreme Court affirmed procedural discipline, noting that not every allegation in an election petition deserves to survive if it does not directly pertain to the candidate's conduct or election.
-
The case reiterates the high threshold for election disputes, aligning with precedents like Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba and Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Tota Singh, while distinguishing their application in the present case.
-
The judgment also reflects judicial pragmatism, given the completion of Gadkari’s 2019 term and his re-election in 2024.