Mumbai, Maharashtra (June 25, 2025): The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition that alleged discrepancies in the conduct of the Maharashtra Assembly elections held on November 20, 2024. The petition had specifically raised concerns over an unusually high number of votes reportedly cast after official voting hours ended at 6 PM. The Court had earlier reserved its verdict for June 25. On the day of the ruling, the division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor dismissed the petition.
The plea was filed by Chetan Chandrakant Ahire, a member of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA). Senior advocate and party chief Prakash Ambedkar argued the case before the Court. Ahire’s petition had claimed that voting had officially ended, yet the final tallies showed an unexpected spike of 76 lakh additional votes. The petition questioned how such a large number of votes appeared after polling hours and accused the Election Commission, central government and state authorities of failing to maintain transparency.
Read Also | Navi Mumbai: NMMC Warns 2,111 Buildings to Obtain Occupancy Certificates or Face Legal Action
Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing the Election Commission, said Ahire lacked the legal standing to challenge state-wide election results in a writ petition. He further pointed out that the petitioner did not include any winning candidates as respondents in the case. According to the Bar and Bench reports, Advocate Uday Warunjikar, appearing for the Union of India, told the court that such a challenge should have been made through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act. He added that Ahire had bypassed the legally prescribed 45-day timeframe and failed to file the case as a public interest litigation.
The court ultimately rejected the petition. Although it noted that a full day of hearings had been spent on the case, it chose not to impose costs on the petitioner. The judges said the petition had wasted the court's time but they would not levy penalties. "In the light of the above facts, we We have no doubt that this petition needs to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. A whole day of this Court was wasted in hearing the petition. Although costs should be imposed on them but we refrain from doing so," the Court said as quoted by Bar and Bench.