High Court Dismisses Election Petition Against MLA Mahesh Sawant; Big Win for Mahim Legislator

MUMBAI: April 7, 2026

In a significant legal victory for the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction, the Bombay High Court today dismissed an election petition filed against Mahim MLA Mahesh Sawant. The petition, moved by rival candidate Sada Sarvankar, sought to invalidate Sawant’s election.

Justice Arif S. Doctor delivered the judgment, upholding the arguments presented by Advocate Amit Karande, who represented Mahesh Sawant.

Background of the Case

In the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections, Mahesh Sawant secured victory with 50,213 votes, narrowly defeating Sadanand (Sada) Sarvankar, who polled 48,897 votes.

Following the results, Sarvankar filed a petition alleging that Sawant had suppressed information regarding four criminal cases in his nomination affidavit (Form 26). Sarvankar argued that this non-disclosure was grounds for the cancellation of Sawant’s election.

Legal Arguments and Technical Flaws

Advocate Amit Karande, appearing for MLA Mahesh Sawant, highlighted several critical legal and technical lapses in the petition:

• Delayed Security Deposit: Under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act (R.P. Act), it is mandatory to pay a security deposit at the time of filing the petition. In this case, while the petition was filed on January 4, 2025, the deposit was not paid until January 6. Adv. Karande cited Supreme Court precedents to argue that this is an “incurable defect.”

• Substantial Disclosure: Adv. Karande pointed out that Sawant had already disclosed 20 pending cases in his affidavit. He argued that the four cases mentioned by the petitioner were minor in nature (related to political protests and noise pollution) and their non-disclosure did not materially affect the election outcome.

• Procedural Violation: It was further argued that the petition was filed through an advocate rather than being presented by the candidate in person, which violates the strict provisions of Section 81 of the R.P. Act.

The Court’s Verdict

After hearing both sides, the High Court concurred with Advocate Karande’s arguments. In its ruling, the Court noted:

1. Failure to pay the security deposit on time as per Section 117 is a fatal legal error.

2. The petition lacked “Material Facts” necessary to sustain a challenge.

3. Given that the candidate had already disclosed 20 cases, the omission of a few minor cases cannot be viewed as an attempt to significantly mislead voters.

Impact of the Decision: With the petition dismissed at the threshold stage, Mahesh Sawant’s position as the MLA of Mahim remains secure. This ruling effectively ends the legal challenge, as no further hearings will be conducted on this matter.