New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections on grounds of alleged irregularities in votes cast after 6 p.m..
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh refused to interfere with the decision of the Bombay High Court that had dismissed a writ petition claiming that nearly 76 lakh votes — 6.8 per cent of the total — were “illegally” cast after the official polling hours on November 20, 2024.
In an order passed on June 25 this year, the Bombay HC had termed the writ petition —which relied on an RTI response obtained by activist Venkatesh Nayak stating that the Election Commission of India (ECI) did not have records of post-6 p.m. votes — a “gross abuse of the process of law”.
A bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor had observed that petitioner Chetan Chandrakant Ahire, a voter from Mumbai’s Vikhroli constituency, had no locus standi to challenge elections across all the constituencies in Maharashtra.
“It is a relief, too far-fetched, that too on the basis of no cause of action as the facts clearly demonstrate,” stated the Justice Kulkarni-led Bench in its judgement.
It further disapproved the reliance on newspaper articles and third-party RTI applications, saying: “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.”
It added that “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.”
The Bombay High Court had also rejected the prayer to revert to paper ballots, citing the Supreme Court rulings upholding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
“We have no manner of doubt that this writ petition needs to be summarily rejected. It is accordingly rejected. 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 Justice Kulkarni-led Bench had observed.
(IANS)
