The Supreme Court has declined to halt proceedings in an election petition challenging former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel’s 2023 assembly election victory, leaving the question of whether the petition was filed beyond the statutory deadline to be determined by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana ruled that it found no reason to step in at the current stage. The bench observed that the factual correctness and legal implications of the disputed dates must be established through evidence during trial, clearing the way for the High Court to assess the limitation issue in accordance with the law.
Limitation Arguments Over Delayed Affidavit
Appearing for the senior Congress leader, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha pressed for the summary dismissal of the election petition at the threshold. Counsel contended that the challenge brought by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Vijay Baghel was barred under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prescribes a mandatory 45-day limitation period for challenging an election.
Directing the bench to the case record, Sibal pointed out that while the 45-day window following the declaration of election results expired on January 17, 2024, the affidavit submitted by Vijay Baghel was dated January 22, 2024. Questioning how an election petition could proceed without a timely affidavit, Sibal maintained that statutory limitation touches the root of the matter and can be invoked at any stage under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Court Queries Timing Of Preliminary Objection
During the hearing, the bench questioned why the objection regarding the filing deadline had not been raised earlier in the proceedings. While acknowledging that the ground was being introduced at this stage and urging the court not to hold the omission against his client when the statute was clear, Sibal emphasised that the affidavit bearing the later date remained part of the record. The bench noted the document’s presence on record but reiterated that the issue warranted trial determination rather than threshold dismissal.
Allegations And Prior Litigation History
The dispute stems from an election petition filed by Vijay Baghel seeking to annul Bhupesh Baghel’s election from the Patan assembly constituency in the 2023 Chhattisgarh state elections. The BJP leader alleged that the former chief minister violated the mandatory 48-hour silence period preceding polling by leading a procession through the constituency.
The litigation has undergone multiple rounds across both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Chhattisgarh High Court previously rejected an application seeking dismissal of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Later, in July 2025, the Supreme Court permitted Bhupesh Baghel to withdraw an earlier petition to approach the High Court, acting as the election tribunal, with his maintainability objections.
In June 2026, the High Court again declined to dismiss the petition at the preliminary stage, ruling that several issues raised in the case required examination during trial. The latest proceedings before the Supreme Court focused on whether the alleged filing defects and delays justified rejecting the petition at the outset or required adjudication after the appraisal of evidence. The petition remains pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court, where evidence is scheduled to be recorded.
