Bombay HC Dismisses Plea To Nullify Maharashtra Assembly Polls | No Locus Or Cause Shown | Article 329 Bars Challenge Outside Election Petition
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor dismissed a writ petition seeking to nullify the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections. The petitioner had challenged the entire electoral exercise on allegations of procedural irregularities related to votes cast after the official polling hours. The court stated that the petition lacked substantial merit and failed to present concrete material to substantiate the claims of illegality or fraud in the conduct of elections.
The court declined to interfere with the results of the state assembly elections, holding that the petition was devoid of evidence and was procedurally deficient. The Bench stated that the petitioner had not made a proper demand for justice to the Election Commission of India, had no locus standi to seek the annulment of elections across all constituencies, and had failed to establish any enforceable legal right. Consequently, the petition was summarily rejected.
The court reiterated that the right to vote is a statutory right and not a fundamental one, observing that general suspicions or hypothetical doubts regarding the electoral process do not justify the invocation of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly elections conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on 20 November 2024. The results were declared on 24 November 2024. The petitioner, a voter from the Mumbai-Vikhroli Constituency, sought a declaration that the entire election process was null and void.
The petitioner raised thirteen prayers, including directions for detailed disclosure from the ECI regarding votes cast between 5:00 PM and the final closing of polling, and the number of pre-numbered slips (tokens) distributed to voters waiting in queue after 6:00 PM. The petitioner also prayed for withdrawal of election certificates issued by Returning Officers, declaring the results void, and reverting to paper ballots in future elections.
The petition was primarily based on an RTI reply received by Mr. Venkatesh Nayak, a third party, from the Central Public Information Officer of the ECI, which allegedly stated that no information was available regarding tokens distributed after 6:00 PM. The petitioner claimed that around 76 lakh votes cast after 6:00 PM were illegal, as the ECI had no corresponding data.
The petitioner argued that the issuance of pre-numbered slips to voters in the queue at 6:00 PM is mandatory under paragraph 13.47 of the Handbook for Returning Officers, 2023. It was contended that the absence of such records rendered post-6:00 PM votes invalid, thereby vitiating the entire election process.
Further, the petitioner contended that the discrepancy amounted to a fraud on the Constitution and violated the principle of free and fair elections. The petitioner also claimed that even a contesting candidate would lack a remedy, as polling officers could not be made parties in an election petition.
The petitioner argued that this unique situation justified invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, citing Article 170 and alleging that elections to all 288 constituencies were invalid due to 6.8% votes being unaccounted.
The respondents, including the Union of India, ECI, Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra, and the State of Maharashtra, opposed the petition. Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for ECI, raised preliminary objections to the petition’s maintainability, citing Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandate that election disputes be resolved through election petitions.
It was argued that the petitioner had not contested the election and had not filed any representation with the ECI. The petitioner's claims were based solely on newspaper articles and an RTI reply obtained by a third party. The ECI submitted that there was no record or complaint of malpractice in any polling station.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, representing the Union of India, argued that the petition amounted to an abuse of process and that the petitioner failed to make any demand for justice to the ECI before approaching the court. He further noted that the writ petition was filed on 27 January 2025, after the statutory period for filing election petitions had expired.
Mr. Sachin Shetye, appearing for the State Election Commission, clarified that his client had no role in the conduct of the state assembly elections.
The court recorded that the petitioner was merely a voter from the Vikhroli constituency and had not contested the election nor made any representation to the ECI. The Bench observed: "Thus, on such extremely weak, feeble and inadequate plea, the petitioner is desirous to maintain this writ petition."
Referring to legal precedent, the court stated: "It is well-settled that a prayer for a writ of mandamus is not maintainable in the absence of an enforceable legal right as well as a legally protected right."
The court stated the requirement of a "demand for justice" before seeking a writ: "Unless there has been a distinct 'demand for justice' and after such demand being made when the authorities did not act in accordance with the law, only in such event, a prayer for a writ of mandamus would be maintainable."
Quoting from Sansar Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the court held: "There was no prior representation made by the petitioner to the appropriate Department... pointing out any illegality on the notifications."
The court found the petition lacked locus standi and a valid cause of action: "We wonder as to how the petitioner can have a locus standi to seek such wide, sweeping and drastic reliefs to question the entire elections of the State Legislative Assembly."
On the reliance on RTI replies and newspaper articles, the court remarked: "Merely on political opinions or on unsubstantiated newspaper reports, a petition under Article 226 cannot at all be maintained."
The court observed that no successful candidate had been impleaded, and no evidence of malpractice at any polling booth was presented: "There is not an iota of material whatsoever that there is a difference between the votes which were cast and the polled votes."
On the claim regarding EVMs and a demand to return to paper ballots, the court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India: "We must reject as foible and unsound the submission to return to the ballot paper system... EVMs offer significant advantages... and have eliminated invalid votes."
The court noted the danger of creating public distrust without evidence: "Repeated and persistent doubts and despair, even without supporting evidence, can have the contrarian impact of creating distrust."
It found the prayer to discard EVMs an attempt to discredit the electoral process: "The real intention of the petitioner [is] to discredit the system of voting through the EVMs and thereby derail the election process."
The court issued the following directions and conclusions: "We have no manner of doubt that this writ petition needs to be summarily rejected. It is accordingly rejected."
On the absence of any legal right or injury: "The petitioner having failed to demonstrate a legal injury, the sequel is automatically the lack of petitioner's locus to maintain the writ petition."
On the argument that voting after 6 PM was illegal: "We fail to discern as to how, in the absence of any tangible material... that there was any fraudulent voting or there was no voting."
Regarding the petition's foundation: "The only basis for the petitioner to contend that there is an invalid / bogus voting of 76 lakhs votes is founded on a singular RTI reply... Such case of the petitioner appears to be quite absurd to say the least."
On the legal requirement to approach the ECI before court: "The petitioner has not approached the ECI in making any such ‘demand for justice’... before approaching this Court and in making prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus."
The court also criticized the naming of respondents: "The frame of the petition by impleading the Election Commission of India with the nomenclature as 'Chief Election Commission of India'... There are no such entities for a writ to be issued."
On reliance on newspaper reports: "We are quite astonished as to how a writ petition can be filed on the basis of a single newspaper article... Except such limited material, there is no other material whatsoever, much less of any authenticity."
In its order, the bench observed that there was no doubt about the petition’s lack of merit, warranting its rejection at the very outset. It further noted that the hearing had taken up almost the entire day, affecting other urgent matters listed before it. While the court stated that such a situation would typically justify imposing costs on the petitioner, it chose not to do so in this case.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Ambedkar with Mr. Hitendra Gandhi, Mr. Ajay Gaikwad, Ms. Priyadarshi Telang, Mr. Sarwajeet Bansode i/b. Mr. Sandesh More
For the Respondents: Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/b. Mr. Jenish Jain for Union of India; Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshay Shinde for ECI; Mr. Sachindra Shetye with Mr. Akshay Pansare for Chief Electoral Officer; Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State of Maharashtra
Case Title: Chetan Chandrakant Ahire v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1402 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:25202-DB
Bench: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor
