The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 4, 2026) dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader and former Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel challenging a Chhattisgarh High Court order. While rejecting the petition, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana reprimanded him for trying to delay the trial of an election petition challenging his 2023 State Assembly election victory from the Patan constituency.
The Apex Court pulled up Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha, representing Baghel, saying, “Let the trial proceed. You are delaying as much as possible. You will have a decision.”
Sibal argued that the High Court was wrong in holding that no preliminary issue arose for adjudication. He contended that the election petition was barred by limitation due to a defectively timed affidavit. He urged the top court to either decide the preliminary issue on limitation or refrain from ruling that no such issue existed. “There are two prayers. One is to decide the preliminary issue, or don’t say there is no issue. It is said (by the HC) that there is no issue,” Sibal said.
Justice V Mohana: Let the trial proceed. You are delaying as much as possible. You will have a decision. Senior Adv Kapil Sibal, for petitioner: There are two prayers. One is to decide the preliminary issue, or don’t say there is no issue. It is said there is no issue. Justice V Mohana: Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. You could have pleaded this earlier. Without framing a basis, there cannot be an issue. The Court cannot confer a right when one is not a party.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 3, 2026
Refusing to accept Sibal’s contention, Justice Mohanna said that the issues could have been raised earlier. “Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. You could have pleaded this earlier. Without framing a basis, there cannot be an issue. The Court cannot confer a right when one is not a party,” Justice Mohanna said. “Somebody should have advised you to amend the written statement,” CJI Kant added.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asserted that election cases have to be decided in a time-bound manner. He said that if the court allowed Baghel to raise the question of limitation as a preliminary issue, he would then pray for amendment, further delaying the trial. “This is another aspect of delaying the trial. Once we allow this, then you will pray for amendment. Election cases should have time-bound disposal,” Justice Bagchi said.
Senior Adv Kapil Sibal: Please record my statement. We will not file any application. Justice Joymalya Bagchi: We have desisted from imposing costs due to the persuasion of senior counsel. CJI Surya Kant: Dismissed. Senior Adv Kapil Sibal: Is it a plain dismissal? CJI Surya Kant: No, we are upholding the High Court order.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 3, 2026
Sibal assured the court that no further applications would be moved and offered to place an undertaking on record. However, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision, adding that it did not impose costs on Baghel’s petition due to Sibal’s persuasion. “We are upholding the High Court order. We have desisted from imposing costs due to the persuasion of senior counsel,” the court said.
What is the case against Baghel?
The dismissed petition concerned an election plea filed by BJP MP Vijay Baghel challenging Bhupesh Baghel’s victory from Patan in the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections. According to Vijay Baghel, the former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister held a rally on November 16, 2023, in the constituency, violating the mandatory 48-hour campaign silence period before polling under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the petition, the BJP legislator sought the annulment of Bhupesh Baghel’s election.
The Congress leader filed a plea before the Chhattisgarh High Court urging it to first examine whether the election petition is barred by limitation, before moving forward with deciding the petition on merits. On October 13, 2026, the High Court dismissed this application, observing, “This Court is not inclined to permit such a separate preliminary adjudication at the present stage.”
Sibal and his delaying tactics
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal used similar delaying tactics in case of the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi riots larger conspiracy accued Umar Khalid. The UAPA-accused Khalid was arrested in September 2020 as one of the main conspirators of the riots, which claimed the lives of 53 people, including those like Ankit Sharma.
During his incarceration, Khalid, represented by Sibal, approached the courts multiple times seeking bail. His bail pleas were rejected by courts, including the High Court, citing a prima facie case against him. However, Sibal portrayed Khalid as a victim of deliberate delays in the judicial proceedings going on against him, concealing the fact that Khalid had been filing bail applications after gaps of several months.
His SLP filed before the Supreme Court in April 2023 was adjourned 14 times, out of which 7 adjournments were sought by Khalid’s lawyers. Later in February 2024, Kapil Sibal withdrew Umar Khalid’s SLP from the Supreme Court citing a ‘change in circumstances’. In 2024, while rejecting Khalid’s bail plea, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai hinted that Khalid has been deliberately causing delays and then using the delay in proceedings as a ground to demand bail.
