Shimla, Oct 18 (UNI) In a significant development that could determine the political fate of the high-stakes Naina Devi assembly constituency, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a nuanced verdict, granting former Congress Minister Ram Lal Thakur a final, absolute last opportunity to rectify a critical legal flaw in his election petition against sitting BJP MLA Randhir Sharma.
Single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, has set a firm deadline of October 15, 2025, for the petitioner to comply with a mandatory procedural requirement, failing which the entire petition will be summarily dismissed. The case stems from the intensely contested November 2022 Assembly elections for the 49-Shree Naina Devi Ji seat, which the BJP candidate, Shri Randhir Sharma, won by an exceedingly narrow margin of just 171 votes.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the Congress candidate, Shri Ram Lal Thakur, filed an election petition, leveling grave accusations to challenge the legitimacy of the result. The petition alleged widespread corrupt practices, specifically claiming that the winning candidate and his agents systematically “used and distributed liquor and money” to unduly influence the electorate. In a detailed narrative, the petition described an incident dated November 11, 2022, where supporters of the petitioner intercepted vehicles allegedly ferrying illicit consignments, with occupants purportedly confessing that the distribution was carried out at the direct instance, and with the full consent and positive knowledge, of the BJP candidate.
Furthermore, the petition charged that the official counting process, especially for postal ballots, was riddled with “gross and blatant violations,” asserting that 341 postal ballots were declared invalid without informing his agents and that an ensuing recount was conducted improperly, ultimately tilting the final result. However, during the hearing of an application filed by the BJP MLA seeking the dismissal of the petition, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel pinpointed a fundamental legal infirmity. Despite the gravity of the claims, the court found that the election petition was not accompanied by an affidavit in the legally prescribed ‘Form 25’, as is mandatorily required under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, read with Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, whenever allegations of corrupt practice are made. The court observed that the affidavit, which was filed was fundamentally deficient, noting with criticism that its verification stated the allegations were true “on the basis of legal advice received.” Justice Goel remarked that factual assertions concerning corrupt practices “can by no stretch of the imagination be based on legal advice,” highlighting a severe lack of proper verification and personal responsibility for the serious charges leveled.
Despite this stark deficiency, the bench, relying on a line of Supreme Court judgments including the precedent set in ‘G.M. Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar’, ruled that the defect was “curable” and did not merit immediate dismissal at the preliminary stage. Consequently, while refusing to throw out the petition outright, the court has extended a lifeline to the Congress leader. The order provides a final, unequivocal last opportunity to file a fresh and compliant affidavit in the correct Form 25 on or before the October 15 deadline. The court explicitly warned that if this “needful is not done,” the Election Petition “shall be deemed to be dismissed.”
This ruling leaves the door open for a full trial on the substantive allegations of bribery and counting irregularities, but places the entire onus and the future of the case squarely on the petitioner’s shoulders to meet this single, non-negotiable procedural command.
