Prayer For Electoral Success Is Not Appeal For Votes On Ground Of Religion: Bombay High Court Upholds Election Of AIMIM MLA
The Bench said that saying "amen" in response to dua is materially distinct from making an electoral pledge; election petition rejected for want of material facts under Section 83 RP Act.
Justice N.J. Jamadar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the act of a candidate praying "Dua" for his own electoral success, and the congregation responding with "Amen", does not amount to a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petition challenged the election of AIMIM MLA Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique, who was elected from the Malegaon Central Assembly Constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections.
The Court further held that saying "Amen" in response to a Dua is an act of agreeing with or seconding a prayer, and is "materially distinct from making the pledge, which is in the nature of a formal promise or undertaking," thereby rejecting the petitioner's contention that collective utterance of "Amen" during election meetings amounted to extracting a pledge to vote for the returned candidate.
A Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar while allowing the application for rejection, rejected the election petition in its entirety for failure to disclose a complete cause of action, and observed, “The prayer for success in the electoral fray, or invocation of the blessings of the God or Deity has neither the trappings of soliciting the votes on the ground of religion of the candidate, nor it amounts to marring the prospect of the rival candidate with reference to his religion…by saying Amen, the person can be said to have agreed with or seconded the prayer for the electoral success of the Respondent No.1. However, saying Amen is materially distinct from making the pledge, which is in the nature of a formal promise or undertaking”.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the applicant, Advocate S.S. Patwardhan appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Manisha Desai appeared for the respondent.
In the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections from Malegaon Central Constituency, the petitioner, Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid, contesting on the "Auto Rikshaw" symbol, lost to Respondent No. 1, Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique of AIMIM, contesting on the "Kite" symbol, by a margin of 162 votes.
The petitioner challenged the election of AIMIM candidate Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique from the Malegaon Central Assembly Constituency, alleging that he committed corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He claimed that, as the Imam of Jama Masjid and Eidgah at Malegaon, the respondent offered a Dua seeking electoral success during congregational prayers and permitted campaign speeches invoking religion, including remarks allegedly made by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi comparing the petitioner to "Yazid" and calling him a "drug peddler."
The petition further alleged that the respondent promoted enmity between "Dakhani Muslims" and "Momins" through campaign speeches, pamphlets, and prayer meetings organised by his sister and daughter.
Additionally, the petitioner alleged that 1,082 deceased persons were shown as having cast votes, rendering the election liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act.
Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 86(1) of the RP Act seeking outright rejection of the election petition for failing to disclose material facts and full particulars as mandated under Section 83 of the Act.
The Court rejected the petitioner's preliminary objection that non-compliance with Section 83 could not ground rejection under Section 86, relying on Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 to hold that Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies independently via Section 87 of the RP Act.
Examining each allegation individually, the Court found the pleadings regarding "Dua" and "Amen" vague and, even taken at face value, insufficient to constitute corrupt practice. Applying Dr. Ramesh Yashwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Ors. (1996) 1 SCC 130, the Court held that mere mention of religion in a campaign speech is not forbidden unless it amounts to an appeal to vote on the ground of religion, and found the speeches by the respondent and his associates, including references to Islamic history, invocations for peace, and support from religious organisations, did not cross this threshold.
“In the case at hand, as noted above, corrupt practice is on account of the alleged offending speeches made by the persons, who do not appear to be election agent of Respondent No.1. For those speeches, consent is sought to be attributed to Respondent No.1 on the score of his presence in those meeting and nothing more. No overt act or speech in the very same meeting which would demonstrate the consent has been pleaded… In the pamphlet referred to above, an appeal to vote Respondent No.1 on the ground of his religion is conspicuous by its absence. What is suggests is that the Respondent No.1 would be a better representative for the supposed qualifications he has.”, the Bench noted.
On the dead-voters allegation, the Court followed its own recent ruling in Shobha Dinesh Bacchav v. Dr. Subhash Ramrao Bhamre 2025 SCC Online Bom 2329, concerning the same constituency, to hold that bald assertions unsupported by polling agent affidavits or CCTV/Form 17-C data could not sustain an inquiry.
Cause Title: Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique v. Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid @ Asif Shaikh Rasheed and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:12567)
Appearances:
Applicant: Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocate, Suyash N. Khose, Siddharth Sutaria and Abhijit G. Aher, Advocates.
Petitioner: S.S. Patwardhan with Bhooshan Mandlik Mrinal Shelar, A.V.Hardas, Anurag Patwardhan, Aaroh Kulkarni, Advocates.
Respondent: Manisha Desai, Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv, Advocates.