Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi chief Prakash Ambedkar launched a scathing attack on the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a petition challenging the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, calling it a “missed opportunity to uphold electoral integrity.”
The court had rejected pleas alleging 76 lakh votes cast post-deadline and mismatched voting-counting data at 96 booths.
Ambedkar’s Key Allegations
Ambedkar, who argued the case personally, revealed shocking roadblocks in investigating the polls: “We filed RTIs seeking proof of 76 lakh votes cast after 6 PM. The Election Commission replied saying data doesn’t exist! How can 76 lakh votes vanish from records?” he questioned, citing EC’s own press note confirming the late votes.
The HC’s division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor had dismissed Mumbai resident Chetan Ahire’s petition, stating, “We have no manner of doubt that this writ petition needs to be summarily rejected… The hearing consumed a whole day, warranting dismissal with costs (though we refrain).”
Legal Tussle
Ambedkar accused the court of procedural impropriety,
RTI Dead End: No data provided on late votes or booth-wise discrepancies despite formal requests
Jurisdiction Shift: Court treated it as an “election petition” (which has stricter evidence rules) instead of a writ
Evidence Dismissed: Judges allegedly called attached EC press notes and media reports “unreliable”
“This isn’t personal – it’s about systemic transparency. Either polling staff illegally extended voting or acted under orders,” Ambedkar asserted, hinting at possible orchestrated rigging.
Bigger Implications For Electoral Trust
The verdict raises critical questions:
Documentation Gap: Why does EC lack records of 76 lakh votes it officially acknowledged?
Judicial Scrutiny: Should courts demand greater accountability in poll disputes?
Precedent Set: Does this discourage future challenges to electoral malpractices?
Ambedkar hinted at exploring Supreme Court options, while opposition parties weigh demands for an independent audit. With Maharashtra’s political landscape already volatile, this controversy may reignite debates on EVM transparency and poll reforms.
“The court’s duty was to seek answers, not avoid them,” Ambedkar concluded, framing the battle as one for “the soul of Indian democracy.”
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
