The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the election of BJP MLA Rajendra Gavit from Palghar, ruling that polygamy — particularly when permitted by tribal custom — does not amount to electoral misconduct if disclosed transparently in the nomination affidavit.
Justice Sandeep Marne, delivering the order on Monday, observed that Gavit, a member of the tribal Bhil community, had made an “honest and voluntary disclosure” about both his spouses, including their PAN details and income tax filing status, in accordance with the norms of transparency expected from candidates.
“There may be cases where a candidate belonging to a particular religion, in which polygamy is permitted, has contracted multiple marriages,” the court said, emphasizing that disqualification on this basis would amount to discrimination and deny entire communities their electoral representation.
The petition, filed by social activist Sudhir Jain — a voter from Palghar — sought to declare Gavit’s 2024 election victory void, alleging that his second marriage was invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act and that listing Rupali Gavit as his second wife was a false declaration.
However, Gavit argued that the information was truthfully declared and rooted in tribal customs where polygamy is culturally acceptable. The court found merit in this contention, holding that adding a column to disclose such information in the affidavit cannot be deemed a defect or a violation of election rules.
“Mere addition of a column to make a true and honest disclosure of information would not attract a ground for challenging the election,” the bench said, noting that the petitioner had failed to show how such disclosure contravened the Election Rules.
The court also clarified that it was not necessary to examine the legality of the second marriage at this stage, as the issue before it was limited to whether the declaration affected the validity of the election.
By upholding Gavit’s electoral win, the High Court reaffirmed that voluntary transparency in nomination forms — even if unconventional — does not render a candidate ineligible under existing election laws, especially when aligned with community customs.
