The Bombay High Court on Monday reserved its order on the plea seeking that the Maharashtra Assembly election results of 2024, be declared null and void “due to the non-compliance with established legal provisions, procedural lapses and irregularities in the legal process.” During the hearing on Monday, the Election Commission of India (ECI) raised Preliminary objections to the petition while arguing that the court did not need to go into the merits of the petition at all.
The bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor said that the order will be passed on Wednesday. The entire issue in the petition revolves around 76 lakh votes polled after 6pm on the Maharashtra Assembly election day.
The petition filed by a Mumbaikar, Chetan Ahire and argued by advocate Prakash Ambedkar is based on the issue raised by opposition parties including Ambedkar’s party Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, about high voter turnout post 6pm on polling day and details of the same allegedly not being provided by the ECI.
After the Assembly election, the ECI had put out a data saying that 76 lakh votes were cast post 6pm during the Maharashtra Assembly polling day on November 20, 2024. However, when the details of the voters who cast their vote late in the day were sought by the opposition parties, it was allegedly not given by the ECI.
During the hearing, the bench asked Ambedkar if post 6 pm voting happened during Lok Sabha or any other election. Ambedkar replied that it does happen and data has always been collated since the first election but it was not shared when asked this election. At this, the bench said, “if this is established practice that polling does take place post 6pm, then why did you not question the Lok Sabha election? Where is the statement in your petition? Our question is about the pattern. How was there a departure this time from earlier practice?”
Ambedkar replied that the concern was only for the Assembly election last year. “Those who are elected are not elected by free and fair election. It was manipulated. A deceit has been used. Either by the officials themselves or the ECI. A fraud on the Constitution cannot be allowed to remain. If they have documents then they can still come forward. It is the faith of the common man that is shaken,” submitted Ambedkar. However the bench replied that it was a grey idea as no one knows who the voters after 6pm voted for. “What if the winning candidates did not get any votes in polls post 6pm? This pattern of voting must have been followed even in Lok Sabha, why was no grievance made for that?”
Advocate Ashutosh KUmbhakoni appearing for the ECI took preliminary objection to the petition being argued by Ambedkar. Kumbhakoni submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge elections to all 288 constituencies in Maharashtra and that there is no cause of action spelled out for approaching this Court under the Writ jurisdiction. Kumbhakoni submitted that the winning candidates have not been made party to the petition so the election cannot be set aside behind their back.
Advocate Uday Warunjikar, appearing for the Union of India too, submitted that the petitioner should have filed an Election Petition which has a limit of 45 days since declaration of results, but since the petitioner had missed the opportunity, he has approached the court with a Writ petition. “Moreover the petitioner is not seeking anything for himself but is asking this for the public at large so he should have filed a Public Interest Litigation,” said Warnujikar raising issues of maintainability of the petition at the preliminary stage.
– Ends