Justices SV Gangapurwala and Sunil P Deshmukh handed down the decision. Candidates choose processions with bands, placing cutouts, ads, and other costly activities even when sending their nomination forms, according to the Court. As a result, even though no other party is running against the incumbent, costs are incurred by such a candidate.

"It cannot, therefore, be said that in all cases there will be no election expenses in contest free or unopposed elections, and candidates who are elected unopposed will be exempted from tendering election expenses," the court concluded.

The case was first heard by a single judge, who cited a Bombay High Court decision in the case of Dipmala w/o Ravindra Chachane vs. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. The single-judge noted that the Dipmala decision indicated that if there are two or more candidates for a specific position, it will be considered a contest, and candidates who spend money in such a contest will only be required to tender their accounts. As a result, the single judge referred the case to a larger bench after posing the following question for the larger bench to consider. “Whether a candidate elected without opposition is required to submit election expenditure accounts under Section 14B (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, Section 16 (1- D) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Nagar Panchayats and Townships Act 1965, and Section 15B (1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961., in light of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.2016 and the order dated 07.02.1995?"

The Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act's rules, according to the Division Bench, were enacted to ensure election purity and to keep track of candidates' financial affairs and transactions. "Money, its strength, and influence have a strong proclivity to serve the cause of the privileged class, placing them in a distinctly advantageous role," the bench noted. The clauses arose, according to the Court, as a result of "unethical, illegal, and dishonest use of money to influence, entice, induce citizens rather than corrupting their conscience, and/or as a case to take advantage of people's poor state compelling them to surrender their conscience and receive votes."

According to the Court, the regulatory provisions hold candidates in check and limit their unbridled tendencies, desires, and aspirations, as well as caution them against using unethical methods to gain election. In the case of Dipmala, the Division Bench also noted that none of the State EC's orders were referred to or brought to the Court's attention. The decision was based on the facts of the case, and the Court noted that no other decision had established such a ratio that accounts were not required in all cases of uncontested elections. "It cannot, therefore, be said in all situations that there will be no election expenses in contest free or unopposed elections, and candidates who are elected unopposed will be exempted from tendering election expenses," the Court ruled.