"Court was expected to provide information": Prakash Ambedkar slams Bombay HC judgement on validity of 2024 Maharashtra polls

India Gazette

2 days ago

Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], June 26 (ANI): Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi (VBA) chief Prakash Ambedkar on Thursday criticised the Bombay High Court's dismissal of a petition challenging the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election results.
He said that while the court has a duty to examine such matters, it appeared to have overlooked the concerns raised. The petition, backed by Ambedkar, alleged discrepancies in the voting process, including votes cast after the official deadline.
Earlier, Bombay High Court dismissed Chetan Ahire's petition, alleging bogus voting in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections.
Addressing the media on Thursday, Ambedkar, who argued the case in the court, said, 'Chetan Ahire had filed an important issue regarding the conduct. It was about checking whether this election was free and fair or not.'
He added that Ahire had filed a Right to Information (RTI) request and asked for data regarding the polls, but the RTI reply said that the information was not available.
'To get information whether it (election) was done according to the law, we had asked those in Delhi to file an RTI. The reply received from RTI was that the information we requested is not available.
On the issue of 76 lakhs votes cast after 6 pm, which was also a question taken up by the Bombay HC, the VBA chief said, 'Once the time is up, if you want to vote, slips are distributed. According to the Election Commission's press note, 76 lakh votes were cast. Tell us whether those slips are available. The Election Commission has made a law; all this is binding. Did the polling officer give information?'
On the petition filed in the court, he added that instead of considering it as a writ petition, the court took up the matter as an election petition and gave the verdict.
'So we did not get a (RTI) reply, then this petition was filed. The main point was that the legal obligations that require giving information... If the parties and the court are to give information to the election committee, there is a situation where this is a writ petition, but the court considered it an election petition and considering it as an election petition, they gave such a verdict,' he said.
He further added, 'The Election Commission's press note was attached to the petition, and the Loksatta article was attached...How can we believe this news? It has no strength, the judge said.'
'There are reports that the voting done and the counting of votes do not match in 96 places. When asked through RTI, it was said that this information is not available. Whether it is in accordance with the law was asked, but there is no answer to this question in the judgment,' Ambedkar said.
On the judgment, Ambedkar said, 'The court was expected to provide information, but unfortunately, the right to information will be obstructed by this. Examination is the duty of the court. But the court did not see it'
He further said that two doubts arise here, that those who organised the election may have pressed the button to cast a vote or they may have received instructions from someone.
'This is not our personal dispute. If there is no document of voting after the time has expired, two doubts arise. Those who organised the election may have pressed the button, or they may have received instructions,' he said.
The Bombay HC on Wednesday dismissed a petition that alleged bogus voting and had sought to set aside the results of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections.
A Division Bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Arif S Doctor rejected the petition filed by Mumbai resident Chetan Ahire, who had challenged the validity of the election results based on votes allegedly polled after the stipulated 6 pm deadline.
Pronouncing its order after reserving it earlier this week, the court said: '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 costs; however, we refrain from doing so.' (ANI)