The Bombay High Court has reserved its decision on Amol Kirtikar’s election petition against Ravindra Waikar, who won the Mumbai North-West seat by just 48 votes. Kirtikar’s legal team claims 120 uncounted tendered votes could impact the result, citing violations of voting protocols. Waikar’s counsel argues the petition lacks legal merit, and the court’s ruling will be closely observed.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (Dec 11th) reserved its decision on an election petition filed by Amol Kirtikar, the Shiv Sena (UBT) candidate, against Ravindra Waikar of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) faction. Waikar narrowly won the Mumbai North-West Lok Sabha seat by a margin of just 48 votes.
Justice Sandeep Marne, presiding over the case, identified tendered votes as the primary issue in the petition. “The information shows there were 333 tendered votes, and 120 of them were not counted. A recount of the votes was requested, but it was denied,” argued Pradip Patil, one of Kirtikar’s advocates.
Tendered votes come into play when a voter discovers that someone has already cast a vote in their name. These votes are recorded on ballot paper and submitted using Form 17-B under the Indian Election Act.
Kirtikar’s legal team, comprising advocates Pradip Patil and Amit Karande, emphasized the missing 120 tendered votes as the crux of their challenge. They also flagged other alleged irregularities during the vote-counting process.
Among these allegations were claims that:
- Some of Kirtikar’s counting agents were barred from sitting at counting tables.
- Mobile phone usage was observed inside the counting center, a violation of election protocols.
- Despite repeated complaints, no action was taken until the twelfth day, when an FIR was registered.
The lawyers, however, reiterated that the missing tendered votes formed the backbone of their petition.
Advocate Anil Sakhare, representing Waikar, refuted the claims, asserting that the petition lacked legal merit.
“There should be specific affirmations and pleadings in an election petition. The court can and should dismiss the petition in the absence of these. The petitioner has not shown how the tendered votes were in favor of the returning candidate,”
he argued.
Sakhare maintained that Kirtikar’s case failed to establish a direct link between the missing votes and the outcome of the election, urging the court to dismiss the petition.
In one of the tightest contests of the election, Waikar won with 4,52,644 votes, edging past Kirtikar’s tally of 4,52,596. Kirtikar is now seeking to have Waikar’s election declared void, citing procedural lapses and irregularities.
The court has reserved its order after hearing arguments from both sides. Justice Marne will review the submissions and issue a ruling on the contentious matter.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for addressing tendered votes and election procedural lapses, particularly in contests decided by razor-thin margins. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the ruling will be closely watched by parties and candidates alike.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
