Pallavi Prashant Kale vs the Election Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Pallavi Prashant Kale vs the Election Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed. The Court observed it was a fit case for imposition of costs but refrained at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.01.2026 of respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner's objection to respondent no.3's nomination papers is liable to be interfered with in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Court's answer

There is no infirmity in the impugned order; respondent no.2 correctly held that it is not possible to examine the factual allegations of title, i.e., whether the properties stand in the name of respondent no.3 or her husband.

Ratio / Principle

Rejection of nomination papers cannot be the subject matter of writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India (2022 SCC OnLine SC 2213).

Key takeaways

The petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy in law depending upon the outcome of the election result.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Election law – Nomination papers – Objection by rival candidate that respondent no.3 did not disclose properties standing in the name of her husband (Gat Nos.153, 256, 263, 267, 467, 1404 and 845) and disclosed properties not belonging to her – Objection rejected by respondent no.2 on the ground that factual allegations of title cannot be adjudicated – Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Held: (i) no infirmity in the impugned order, the authority correctly declining to examine factual allegations of title; (ii) per Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2213, rejection of nomination papers cannot be the subject matter of writ proceedings under Article 226; (iii) petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy in law depending upon the outcome of the election result – Writ Petition No.1312 of 2026 dismissed – Court observed it was a fit case for imposition of costs but refrained at the request of petitioner's counsel (Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; decided 29 January 2026).

BDP

504 WP-1312-26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1312 OF 2026

Pallavi Prashant Kale V/s

...Petitioner.

The Election Commissioner, State of Maharashtra and Others. …. Respondents.

Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Borolkar i/b Mr. Manoj Patil, advocates for the respondent no.3.

Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye a/w Ms. Dhanashri Mondkar, Mr. Nipun Sawane, advocates for the respondent-State Election Commission.

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, G.P. a/w. Mrs.G.R. Raghuwanshi, A.G.P. for the respondent no.2-State.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 29^TH JANUARY 2026

P.C. :

Not on Board. Upon mentioning by Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale, learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken on Production Board.

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22^nd January 2026 passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner’s objection in respect of nomination papers filed by the respondent no.3. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter citing extreme urgency and submits that the petitioner’s objection to respondent no.3’s nomination papers is that the respondent no.3 has not disclosed properties standing in the name of her husband i.e. Gat Nos.153, 256, 263, 267, 467, 1404 and 845 and further

1

BDP

504 WP-1312-26.doc

the respondent no.3 has disclosed properties that do not belong to her. The petitioner’s written objection dated 22^nd January 2026 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22^nd January 2026 inter alia on the ground that the respondent no.2 cannot adjudicate the factual allegations made by the petitioner.

At the mentioning stage itself, we had indicated to the petitioner that there was no urgency in the matter. Yet Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted on a hearing and it was indicated that if no case is made out then exemplary costs would be imposed. We have perused the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same. The respondent no.2 has correctly held that it is not possible to examine the factual allegations of title and as to whether the properties are standing in the name of the respondent no.3 or her husband. It is settled law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2213 that rejection of nomination papers cannot be the subject matter of the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy in law depending upon the outcome of the election result.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition. Writ Petition No.1312 of 2026 is dismissed. This is a fit case for imposition of costs, however at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we refrain from doing so.

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

2

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed byBHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.02.09 15:13:51 +0530