Background:

In the present case, the petitioner challenged the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election results via a writ petition under Article 226, alleging EVM tampering based on post-deadline votes. Lacking direct evidence and bypassing the statutory election petition process under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the plea sought to overturn results and restore paper ballots. The case raised issues of electoral integrity and procedural propriety.

Issues

1. Whether the legitimacy of votes cast after 6:00 PM in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections could be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, instead of the prescribed election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The court firmly held that allegations challenging the validity of an election must be raised through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It emphasized that Article 226 cannot be used as a substitute for this statutory remedy.
• • The court noted that the petitioner had not submitted any credible evidence such as voter turnout records, EVM data, or affidavits from polling agents. The entire petition was based on a newspaper article, which the court ruled inadmissible as standalone evidence for such serious allegations.
• • The court clarified that voting after 6:00 PM is legally permitted for voters who are already present in the queue by the official closing time. This is a standard practice under election regulations and does not indicate irregularity.
• • The judges observed that the claims were vague, speculative, and politically motivated, and that the petition appeared to be an abuse of the court’s jurisdiction. The court described the filing as a “waste of judicial time”.
• • Referring to earlier Supreme Court rulings, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the integrity and reliability of EVMs, rejecting the petitioner’s call for a return to paper ballots as regressive and unfounded.

Decision:

The Bombay High Court in this case dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The court held that:

• • The petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the appropriate and exclusive remedy for challenging election results is through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• • The court found that the petitioner had provided no credible or admissible evidence, relying only on a newspaper article.
• • The court clarified that votes cast after 6:00 PM by voters already in queue are legally valid and part of standard electoral procedure.
• • It reaffirmed the reliability of EVMs, rejecting the petitioner’s demand to return to paper ballots as unfounded and regressive.

Why this case matters:

• • Reinforces that election challenges must be filed via election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, not writ petitions.
• • Confirms that votes cast after 6 PM by voters already in queue are valid.
• • Upholds the integrity and reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
• • Prevents frivolous, politically motivated petitions that waste judicial time.
• • Emphasizes the need for concrete evidence, not media reports, in election disputes.

Laws related thereto:

Under Constitution:

• Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. However, it cannot be used to challenge election results where a specific statutory remedy exists.

Under Representation of the People Act, 1951:

Section 80: Provides the procedure for filing an election petition to challenge election results.

Section 81: Sets a 45-day limitation period for filing election petitions after the result is declared.

Judicial Precedents:

• Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India, (2006): The Supreme Court held that election disputes cannot be entertained by courts through writ petitions under Article 226 and must be challenged through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

• N. G. Ranga vs Vadra Ramachandra Reddy, (1959): Affirmed that the statutory remedy under the Representation of the People Act is exclusive and exhaustive for election disputes.

• Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission of India, (2013): Upheld the validity and reliability of EVMs and rejected claims based on unsubstantiated allegations about electronic voting fraud.

• Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union of India, (2018): The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural safeguards and statutory remedies must be followed in election challenges and EVMs have been tested and found reliable.

• Lily Thomas vs Union of India, (2013): Clarified the importance of strict adherence to limitation periods and procedural requirements in election petitions.