The Supreme Court dismissed a petition against the 2024 Maharashtra elections, ruling there was no evidence of malpractice or fraud. The Court said there was no material, much less authentic, to prove any irregularity during poll closing hours.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition that challenged the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, citing alleged irregularities concerning votes cast after 6 p.m.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh declined to intervene in the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had previously dismissed a writ petition claiming that approximately 76 lakh votes 6.8 percent of the total were illegally cast beyond the official polling hours on November 20, 2024.
In a ruling delivered on June 25 this year, the Bombay High Court described the writ petition, which was based on an RTI (Right To Information) response from activist Venkatesh Nayak indicating that the Election Commission of India (ECI) lacked records of votes cast after 6 p.m., as a “gross abuse of the process of law.”
Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor noted that the petitioner, Chetan Chandrakant Ahire, a voter from Mumbai’s Vikhroli constituency, did not have the standing to challenge elections in all constituencies across Maharashtra.
Justice Kulkarni-led Bench in its judgment stated,
“It is a relief, too far-fetched, that too on the basis of no cause of action as the facts clearly demonstrate,”
The court criticized the reliance on media articles and third-party RTI requests, declaring: “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 further stated,
“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.”
Additionally, the Bombay High Court had rejected calls to revert to paper ballots, citing Supreme Court rulings that uphold the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The Justice Kulkarni-led Bench observed,
“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,”