Bombay HC Dismisses Plea On Voting Irregularities
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 25th June, The Bombay High Court dismissed a plea alleging irregularities in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. “A whole day of this Court was wasted in hearing the petition,” the Bench remarked, though it chose not to impose costs.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition that raised serious concerns about the Maharashtra Assembly elections conducted on November 20, 2024, particularly regarding the unusually high percentage of votes cast after the official voting hours ended at 6 PM.
A Bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor declined to consider the writ petition submitted by Mumbai resident Chetan Chandrakant Ahire.
The Bench remarked that the petition wasted the Court’s time but chose not to impose any costs.
The Court stated,
“In the light of the above facts, we have no doubt that this petition needs to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. A whole day of this Court was wasted in hearing the petition. Although costs should be imposed on them, we refrain from doing so,”
Ahire sought a declaration to cancel the results announced across all 288 assembly constituencies, citing alleged violations in the polling process. His petition claimed that over 75 lakh votes were recorded after the 6 PM deadline, highlighting an “unusually high number” of late votes. He also pointed out discrepancies between the votes cast and those counted in more than 90 constituencies.
Through his advocate, Prakash Ambedkar, Ahire argued that returning officers failed to adhere to the Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines by not reporting these discrepancies
The reliefs requested included details of voting tokens issued after 6 PM, a breakdown of votes cast outside official hours by constituency, and the annulment of election certificates for winning candidates.
Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing the Election Commission, contended that Ahire lacked the standing to challenge the statewide results in a writ petition. He further noted that Ahire had not included the winning candidates as parties in the petition.
Similarly, Advocate Uday Warunjikar, representing the Union of India, informed the Court that the petitioner should have filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act within the 45-day window following the announcement of results.
Instead, Ahire choose for a writ petition beyond this timeframe and did not frame it as a public interest litigation, despite its broader public significance.
In conclusion, the High Court decided not to proceed with the matter and formally dismissed the petition.
The Bench noted,
“This petition is hence rejected.”
Although the judges strongly criticised the waste of judicial time, they chose not to impose any financial penalty, saying,
“We would have liked to impose cost on it. But we are not imposing any cost.”
Case Title: Chetan Chandrakant Ahire v. Union of India Through Department of Legal and Others WP/3101/2025 & Reg. No. :- WP/1402/2025
