Bombay High Court junks petition alleging discrepancies in Maharashtra Assembly Polls

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition alleging discrepancies in the conduct of the Maharashtra Assembly elections held on November 20, 2024, especially the unusually large percentage of votes cast post the 6 PM (voting hours) [Chetan Chandrakant Ahire v Union of India and Ors]..A Bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor refused to entertain the writ petition filed by one Chetan Chandrakant Ahire (petitioner). The Court observed that the petition was based on a single newspaper report, contained speculative and unsubstantiated claims and was a gross abuse of the process of law. "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," the Court said. It further said that the the petition's hearing alone took a whole day of the court and for that ground alone, the petition deserved to be rejected with costs. However, it refrained from imposing costs on the petitioner. "The hearing of this petition has practically taken the whole day leaving aside our urgent cause list, and for such reason the petition would certainly warrant dismissal with cost, however, we refrain from doing so," the Bench stated..The petitioner moved the Court seeking a declaration that the results across all 288 assembly constituencies in the State be set aside due to alleged violations in the polling process.The petition filed by Ahire highlighted an "unusually high number" of votes cast after the 6 PM official polling time, specifically claiming over 75 lakh votes were recorded post-deadline. Additionally, he highlighted discrepancies between polled and counted votes in more than 90 constituencies. The petitioner through his advocate Prakash Ambedkar further contended that the returning officers neglected Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines by not reporting these apparent mismatches. Among the reliefs sought were details of post-6 PM voting tokens, a constituency-wise breakdown of votes cast outside official hours and the revocation of election certificates for successful candidates..The hearing of this petition has practically taken the whole day leaving aside our urgent cause list and for such reason the petition would certainly warrant dismissal with costs; however, we refrain from doing soBombay High Court .Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing the Election Commission, argued that Ahire lacked the locus to challenge State-wide results in a writ petition. Further, he argued that Ahire failed to include winning candidates as parties.Similarly, Advocate Uday Warunjikar, representing the Union of India, told 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 results. Instead, Ahire chose to file a writ petition outside this permitted timeframe and without designating it as a public interest litigation, despite its broad public implications..After analysing the arguments, the Court concluded that the petition was unsustainable on several grounds. It held that the petitioner 'admittedly' had not approached the Election Commission making 'demand for justice' before invoking its writ jurisdiction and therefore, the petition was not maintainable.Further, the Court noted that Ahire, a voter from a single constituency, lacked locus to challenge results across the entire State calling it "too far fetched especially when there was no demonstrable "cause of action""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," it noted. .It further held that the petition was barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution, as election disputes must be addressed through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act. “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,” the Court said.In the absence of any legal grievance, much less “any legal injury”, the Court concluded that the petition was based merely on suspicion and rejected it..Advocate Prakash Ambedkar with advocates Hitendra Gandhi, Ajay Gaikwad, Priyadarshi Telang, Sarwajeet Bansode instructed by Sandesh More appeared for Ahire (petitioner).Advocate Uday Warunjikar instructed by advocate Jenish Jain appeared for Union of India.Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni with advocate Akshay Shinde appeared for ECI.Advocate Sachindra Shetye with Akshay Pansare represented the Chief Electoral Officer.Additional Government Pleader YD Patil appeared for the State of Maharashtra..[Read Judgment]