Bombay High Court Rejects Plea Challenging 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections Over Alleged Bogus Voting

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25) dismissed a petition challenging elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which were concluded in November last year, over alleged bogus voting.

The petition filed by one Chetan Ahire alleged that over 75 lakh votes were polled after the official closing time of polling (6 PM). He also claimed there were several discrepancies in almost 95 constituencies, wherein the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted, did not match.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor said the petition 'wasted' the court's precious time as a whole day was spent in hearing the same. 

"We have no manner of doubt that this petition needs to be rejected. Thus, this petition is rejected. The whole day of this Court was wasted while hearing this petition. We were of the view that costs should be imposed on them but we refrain from doing so," Justice Kulkarni pronounced in open court. 

The petition raised serious concerns regarding discrepancies in the voting process, including an unusually high percentage of votes cast in the final minutes and post-closing hours, as well as the lack of transparency in the recording of these votes.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by advocates Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, had contended that nearly 75 lakh votes were polled during the last minutes and beyond the deadline of 6 PM.

"However, no transparent system of recording or verifying the authenticity of these votes was provided," Ambedkar had submitted.

Further, the petition alleged that in nearly 95 constituencies, there has been a discrepancy in polled votes and the actual counted votes. It alleged that the Returning Officers (ROs) failed to adhere to the norms mentioned in the 'Handbook' issued by the ECI for conducting polls, which mandate the ROs to report such discrepancies to the ECI and suspend the right to declare the elections results, till the ECI gives any directions in this regard.

The petition, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the assembly election results are null and void since there have been violation of various norms.

Meanwhile, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and also the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) opposed the plea and raised questions on the tenability of the said petition.

Refusing to accept the contentions of the petitioner, who relied on a newspaper report, and an RTI reply to one Venkatesh Nayak, the bench said that the petition was based on extremely 'feeble' and 'weak' material.

"At every polling station, there are several precautions provided by the ECI to strictly adhere to the fair procedure of the elections. There is nothing on record that at any polling station in the State of Maharashtra, any untoward incident/fraud had taken place. We, hence, fail to discern as to how, in the absence of any tangible material acceptable in law, which also needs to be booth wise, that there was any fraudulent voting or there was no voting. Thus, the said reply to the RTI application would not support the petitioner's contention of elections to all the constituencies in the State of Maharashtra can at all be illegal. In fact on the face of it, such case of the petitioner appears to be quite absurd to say the least," the judges said in the order. 

The bench further, slammed the petitioner's approach in filing the present petition, which it said was extremely casual as he invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of Court under Article 226, sans any tangible material.

"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 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," the judges held. 

With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition. 

Appearance: 

Advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Hitendra Gandhi, Ajay Gaikwad, Priyadarshi Telang, Sarwajeet Bansode and Sandesh More appeared for Petitioner.

Advocates Dr. Uday Warunjikar and Jenish Jain represented Union of India. 

Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni along with Advocate Akshay Shinde represented the Election Commission of India.

Advocates Sachindra Shetye and Akshay Pansare represented State Election Commission. 

Assistant Government Pleader YD Patil represented the State. 

Case Title: Chetan Chandrakant Ahire vs Union of India (Writ Petition 1402 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment