Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge Against 2024 Legislative Assembly Election
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Petition alleging that there was an illegal polling of 76 lakhs votes at the closing hours of the polling for the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly Election. The High Court made it clear that such a petition cannot be maintained merely on the basis of political opinions or unsubstantiated newspaper reports.
The petition before the High Court was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the entire election of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly held by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on November 20, 2024.
The Division Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor and Justice G. S. Kulkarni said, “We are also quite astonished as to how a writ petition can be filed on the basis of a single newspaper article purporting to canvass a theory of discrepancies in the ‘cast vote’ and ‘poll votes’, and on one such opinion published in the newspaper of one Shri. Ketan Pathak.”
“Except such limited material, there is no other material whatsoever, much less of any authenticity, to the effect that there was any malpractice, fraud or complaint of any nature in regard to the voting at the closing hours of the poll i.e. at about 6 p.m., not by the voters who were not in queue. We are of the clear opinion that merely on political opinions or on unsubstantiated newspaper reports, a petition under Article 226 cannot at all be maintained”, it added.
Advocate Prakash Ambedkar represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case of the petitioner was regarding 6.80 % of the total number of votes (i.e. about 76 lakhs votes), which were cast from 6:00 PM till the end of voting. It was alleged that this was illegal because, according to the petitioner, no data was available with the ECI for such votes. The petitioner’s case was based on limited material, stated to be obtained from the ECI under the Right to Information Act. As per the petitioner, the entire exercise of the Election Commission in considering the 76 lakhs votes was wholly illegal and contrary to the procedure for free and fair elections as set out in the Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner had not addressed any application under the RTI Act to seek any information from any authorities, and merely based on some information received either from newspapers or an RTI application made by one Venkatesh Nayak, the petitioner thought it appropriate to file the petition. The Bench found the plea to be extremely weak, feeble and inadequate.
It was noticed that the petitioner had not approached the ECI in making any ‘demand for justice’ on any of the issues as raised in the petition, before approaching the Court and in making prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus.
“This apart, we wonder as to how the petitioner can have a locus standi to seek such wide, sweeping and drastic reliefs to question the entire elections of the State Legislative Assembly. It is a relief, too far fetched, that too on the basis of no cause of action as the facts clearly demonstrate. This more particularly in the context of the Constitutional and Statutory requirements of a bar being created under Article 329(b) which inter alia provides that no election to either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question, except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature”, it said.
“As a requirement of such constitutional provision the RP Act, 1951 in Part VI makes adequate provisions for filing of election petitions before the High Court, to challenge the elections. Such petition is maintainable at the behest of a voter or a contesting candidate. These provisions constitute a Code by itself and cannot be by-passed in questioning the solemnity of the elections as conducted by the ECI within the constitutional set-up”, it added.
The petitioner had also failed to demonstrate a legal injury, and there was a lack of the petitioner’s locus to maintain the writ petition. As per the Bench, the petitioner’s grievance on voting couldn’t partake the character of breach of any of his fundamental rights and/or any bald contention of the basic structure of the Constitution being violated. Considering the absence of material to show that any untoward incident/fraud had taken place at any polling station in the State of Maharashtra, the Bench failed to discern how, in the absence of any tangible material, there was any fraudulent voting or that there was no voting. Moreover, the petitioner had not made a single representation to the Election Commission of India pointing out any infirmity whatsoever in the observance of the rules, regulations, or non-adherence to law in the election process in question.
Thus, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Chetan Chandrakant Ahire v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 1402 of 2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Hitendra Gandhi, Ajay Gaikwad, Priyadarshi Telang, Sarwajeet Bansode, Sandesh More
Respondent: Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, AGP Y. D. Patil, Advocates Akshay Shinde, Uday Warunjikar, Jenish Jain, Sachindra Shetye Akshay Pansare
