Supreme Court seeks reply from MP Nilesh Lanke on BJP's Sujay Vikhe-Patil's election challenge

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) Member of Parliament (MP) Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke on a plea by Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) leader Sujay Vikhe-Patil challenging Lanke's election from Maharashtra's Ahmednagar (now Ahilyanagar) constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls [Sujay Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil v Nilesh Dyandev Lanke].

Vikhe-Patil's plea challenges the proceedings in the election dispute, which alleges, among other things, corrupt practices, excess election expenditure and irregularities in voting during the election.

Senior Advocate NK Kaul, appearing for Vikhe-Patil, told a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the election dispute had already progressed substantially and involved issues which could only be decided after a trial.

"Almost a mini trial has been conducted. Apart from my (Vikhe-Patil's) reputation in politics, this is not a ground to take in a Order 7 Rule 11 at this stage. These are all triable issues," said Kaul.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court issued notice on Vikhe-Patil's plea.

Kaul then requested that the notice be made returnable on a fixed date, saying the proceedings should not continue indefinitely while Lanke remained in office.

"May I only request that notice be issued, with a returnable date, because otherwise the person will continue and the election will get concluded," he said.

"It will be given," responded CJI Kant.

Vikhe-Patil and Lanke had contested the Ahmednagar Lok Sabha seat in the 2024 general election. Lanke, who contested on an NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) ticket, was declared elected on June 4, 2024.

According to reports, Lanke polled 6,24,797 votes, while BJP's Vikhe-Patil secured 5,95,868 votes, giving Lanke a victory margin of 28,929 votes.

Vikhe-Patil subsequently filed an election petition challenging Lanke's election.

He alleged, among other things, that Lanke's campaign involved corrupt practices, including publication of allegedly false statements concerning Vikhe-Patil's personal character and conduct. He also alleged that Lanke had exceeded the permissible election expenditure of ₹95 lakh, failed to disclose some expenses and that there had been bogus or duplicate voting in the constituency.

The petition further alleged that the Returning Officer had not allowed verification of certain Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), and claimed that the alleged irregularities materially affected the election result.

Lanke then sought dismissal of the election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (provision allowing a court to reject a case at the preliminary stage on specified legal grounds).

He argued that the petition did not disclose a proper cause of action and that the allegations, including those of corrupt practices and bogus voting, lacked the necessary particulars.

The Bombay High Court allowed Lanke's application on April 8, 2026 and dismissed Vikhe-Patil's election petition. The High Court had held, among other things, that the allegations of corrupt practices were vague and non-specific and that the petition did not disclose a cause of action.

Vikhe-Patil has now approached the Supreme Court against this High Court decision.

[Read Live Coverage]