The Bombay High Court on June 25 dismissed a petition that sought to challenge the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, which concluded in November last year. The petition was filed by Chetan Ahire, who raised allegations of bogus voting and serious discrepancies in the vote counting process across several constituencies.
Ahire claimed that over 75 lakh votes were polled after the official polling deadline of 6 PM. He alleged irregularities in approximately 95 constituencies, where the number of polled votes did not match the counted votes. The petitioner contended that this raised significant questions regarding the integrity of the election process.
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 Girish Kulkarni stated in open court, while delivering the verdict along with Justice Arif Doctor.
The court further noted that the petition resulted in the waste of a full working day of the court, indicating its strong disapproval of the grounds raised in the plea. A detailed written order from the division bench is still awaited.
The petition, presented through advocate Prakash Ambedkar and assisted by advocates Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, asserted that a large number of votes were cast in the final minutes of polling and even beyond the prescribed deadline.
"However, no transparent system of recording or verifying the authenticity of these votes was provided," Ambedkar submitted before the court.
The petition also alleged that the Returning Officers (ROs) did not comply with the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s guidelines. It pointed to the ‘Handbook’ issued by the ECI, which mandates ROs to report any discrepancy in votes and to withhold declaration of election results until proper directions are received from the Commission.
The plea sought a declaration that the election results be deemed null and void, asserting that the irregularities violated election norms and affected the fairness of the process.
In response, the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) opposed the petition. They questioned the maintainability of the plea and defended the integrity of the election procedure followed in the state.
Despite the serious concerns raised by the petitioner, the court found the claims insufficient to warrant any intervention in the electoral outcome. The bench made it clear that such allegations, without substantial and verifiable evidence, could not form the basis to annul an entire democratic exercise.
