The petition was filed by Congress candidate Lekhram Sahu, who lost the March 2018 Rajya Sabha election from Chhattisgarh. Sahu has alleged that Pandey suppressed material information in her nomination and affidavit, and that ineligible legislators were allowed to vote, materially affecting the outcome of the election.

According to the petition, objections were raised during the nomination scrutiny, claiming that Pandey failed to disclose important details in her sworn affidavit. The then returning officer rejected these objections, allowing the election process to continue. The matter was subsequently taken to the Election Commission of India and the Governor, but polling was conducted as scheduled and Pandey was declared elected.

Following the declaration of results, Sahu approached the High Court, seeking to set aside Pandey’s election on grounds of alleged misrepresentation and violations of election law. The petition has remained pending for several years and is being heard through regular proceedings.

A key plank of the challenge relates to the voting rights of 18 MLAs. The petitioner has contended that 11 BJP legislators were holding the post of parliamentary secretary, while seven others were chairpersons or vice-chairpersons of state corporations and boards, amounting to offices of profit. On this basis, the Congress candidate had sought their disqualification from voting in the Rajya Sabha election. The returning officer had dismissed both objections at the time.

During the latest hearing, the testimony of former Assembly Secretary Chandrashekhar Gangrade was recorded, concluding the evidence phase for the petitioner. With this, all nine witnesses cited by Lekhram Sahu have completed their depositions before the court.

Counsel appearing for Saroj Pandey sought two weeks’ time to place her affidavit and prepare for the defence evidence. The High Court accepted the request. At the next hearing, Pandey and other witnesses presented by her side are expected to record their statements.

The case is being closely watched for its potential implications on electoral transparency and the interpretation of disclosure requirements in nomination affidavits. The High Court’s eventual ruling is expected to clarify legal standards governing alleged concealment of information and voting eligibility in indirect elections such as those to the Rajya Sabha.