The Bombay High Court dismissed a sensational plea that alleged 76 lakh votes were fraudulently cast after 6 PM during the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, slamming it as “a total waste of this Court’s time” and lamenting that it occupied the entire working day, diverting attention from urgent matters.
The Division Bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor minced no words in rejecting the writ petition filed by Chetan Chandrakant Ahire, a resident of Vikhroli in Mumbai, who was represented by political leader and advocate Prakash Ambedkar, along with advocates Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi.
“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. For such reason, the petition would certainly warrant dismissal with cost — however, we refrain from doing so,” the Bench observed, conveying its frustration in no uncertain terms.
Despite the court’s restraint in not imposing monetary costs, the judgment was unequivocal in its condemnation of the petition’s legal hollowness, political motivations, and procedural lapses.
The Controversial Claim: 76 lakh post-6 PM votes
The petitioner claimed, without providing any credible evidence, that an astonishing 76 lakh votes were cast after the 6 PM polling deadline on November 20, 2024, the day of voting in Maharashtra. He argued that this late voting significantly altered outcomes in nearly 90 Assembly constituencies, demanding nothing less than:
- The annulment of results in all 288 Assembly seats
- Withdrawal of victory certificates
- Complete reversion to paper ballots
This extreme demand was backed not by data from the Election Commission of India (ECI) or official observers but by an RTI reply filed by journalist Venkatesh Nayak and a single newspaper article by one Ketan Pathak, which the court described as unverified, speculative, and legally inadmissible.
“We are quite astonished as to how a writ petition can be filed on the basis of a single newspaper article purporting to canvass a theory of discrepancies. Except such limited material, there is no other material whatsoever, much less of any authenticity, to the effect that there was any malpractice or fraud,” the judgment said.
The court noted that Ahire failed to file an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is the only constitutionally permitted route to challenge the validity of an election. He also did not name or implead a single winning candidate, rendering the petition non-maintainable from the start.
Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for the Election Commission of India, stressed that polling beyond 6 PM is a routine electoral feature under Indian law, permissible for all voters already in queue. He further emphasized that no discrepancy existed between the number of votes polled and counted.
Advocate Uday Warunjikar, representing the Union of India, highlighted another fatal flaw — the failure to file an election petition within the 45-day deadline after results were declared. Instead, Ahire resorted to a writ petition under Article 226, which, as the court noted, cannot be used for speculative political grievances. “We do not find a scratch of a legal grievance, much less any legal injury,” the judges said, dismissing the central premise that late voting — even if it occurred — amounted to electoral malpractice.
In a strongly worded observation, the court described the attempts to discredit EVMs and demand a return to paper ballots as a “desperate” and regressive political ploy, reminding that Electronic Voting Machines have been upheld as constitutional and reliable by the Supreme Court of India. “Although such farcical claims are made about the purity of the process… such pleas are in absolute desperation. This is more particularly in view of the settled principles of law on the use of EVMs,” the court noted.
The court’s judgment comes as a major blow to the Congress Party’s sustained campaign — particularly led by Rahul Gandhi — which sought to paint the 2024 Maharashtra elections as “rigged” through the alleged post-6 PM voting. For nearly six months, Gandhi repeatedly cited this narrative in public rallies, social media posts, and even international interviews to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the BJP-led victory.
The High Court’s ruling reaffirms a crucial constitutional principle: elections cannot be challenged through speculative PILs and must follow the electoral laws laid down under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in election matters except through election petitions.
In dismissing the petition as a “relief too far-fetched” and “based on no cause of action,” the court has set a precedent against the growing trend of political lawfare — using the courts as a stage for political messaging, rather than genuine legal remedy.
“This writ petition is a classic example of how Article 226 cannot be misused to question the entire election process of a state on the basis of mere opinion, political suspicion, and no legal evidence,” legal expert and senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani observed following the verdict.
Advocate Uday Warunjikar, representing the Union Government, drove home the procedural failures of the petitioner, noting that Ahire did not file a writ of mandamus, nor did he adhere to the 45-day limitation for filing election petitions.
