The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition alleging bogus voting in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections and seeking to set aside the entire election results.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor, rejected the petition filed by Mumbai resident Chetan Ahire. The petition claimed that approximately 7.6 million votes were cast after the 6 pm polling deadline on November 20, 2024, which allegedly affected outcomes in 90 constituencies.
Court Finds No Merit In Allegations
After a full-day hearing, the bench said, “We have no manner of doubt that this writ petition needs to be summarily rejected.” Although the court noted the petition consumed significant judicial time and warranted dismissal with costs, it chose not to impose costs.
Routine Nature Of Extended Polling Hours Explained
The petition was argued by advocate and political leader Prakash Ambedkar. However, the court questioned whether polling beyond 6 pm was irregular, noting that such extensions occur routinely when voters are still in queue at the scheduled closing time.
Counsel for the Election Commission of India and the Union Government clarified that polling after 6 pm is a standard electoral practice in India and does not constitute an irregularity. They argued that the petition’s claims were vague, speculative, and lacked any factual basis.
No Evidence Of Fraud Or Malpractice
The court observed that stringent safeguards are in place at every polling station to ensure free and fair elections. It noted, “There is nothing on record that at any polling station in Maharashtra, any untoward incident or fraud occurred.”
Rejection Of Call To Discard EVMs
The court also addressed demands to abandon Electronic Voting Machnies (EVMs) in favor of traditional paper ballots. It dismissed such calls as “absolute desperation,” emphasizing that the Supreme Court has upheld the legality and validity of EVMs.
Petition Deemed Politically Motivated and Without Jurisdiction
The bench underscored that petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be based on political opinions or unverified media reports. It questioned the petitioner’s standing to seek such sweeping relief, stating, “It is a relief too far-fetched and unsupported by any cause of action.”
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
