Bombay HC Dismisses Writ Challenging Entire Maharashtra Assembly Election; Cites Lack of Locus, Art 329(b) Bar & No Prior Demand for Justice - 2025-06-25

Bombay High Court Rejects Sweeping Challenge to Maharashtra Assembly Elections

Petition Lacked Locus Standi, Bypassed Election Petition Remedy, and Failed to Make Prior Demand for Justice, Rules Bench

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has summarily dismissed a writ petition (WP/1402/2025) filed by Mr. Chetan Chandrakant Ahire that sought to declare the entire Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly elections held in November 2024 null and void. The division bench, comprising Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Hon'ble Justice Shri Arif S. Doctor , found the petition to be a "gross abuse of the process of law," citing multiple grounds including lack of locus standi, a constitutional bar on interference in electoral matters outside the prescribed legal framework, and the petitioner's failure to make a "demand for justice" before approaching the court.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a voter from the Vikhroli-Mumbai constituency, challenged the elections held on November 20, 2024 (results declared November 24, 2024) alleging widespread irregularities. The primary contention revolved around approximately 76 lakh votes (6.80% of the total) purportedly cast after the official closing time of 6:00 PM. The petitioner claimed the Election Commission of India (ECI) lacked data on tokens distributed for late voting, basing this assertion on an RTI reply received by a third party, Mr. Venkatesh Nayak .

The petition presented thirteen prayers, including demands for the disclosure of token distribution details, declaration of the entire election process as void, withdrawal of election certificates, an audit of EVMs and VVPAT systems, and a reversion to paper ballots.

Petitioner's Arguments

Mr. Prakash Ambedkar, representing the petitioner, argued that the alleged absence of data on late votes indicated illegal voting, vitiating the entire election process and rendering it unconstitutional. He contended that the petitioner, as a concerned voter, had no alternative remedy through an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) for such a broad challenge concerning all 288 constituencies. He cited precedents like Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner and A. C. Jose vs Sivan Pillai & Ors. to support his arguments for judicial intervention.

Respondents' Objections

Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate for the ECI, and Dr. Uday Warunjikar for the Union of India, vehemently opposed the petition's maintainability. Their preliminary objections included:

* Constitutional Bar: Article 329(b) of the Constitution prohibits interference by courts in electoral matters, except through an election petition as provided by law (i.e., the RP Act, 1951).

* Lack of Locus Standi: The petitioner, a single voter from one constituency who did not contest the elections, could not challenge the elections of all 288 constituencies.

* No Cause of Action & Legal Injury: The petition was devoid of specific factual details, relying on newspaper reports and suspicion, and the petitioner suffered no direct legal injury.

* No Demand for Justice: The petitioner had not approached the ECI with his grievances before filing the writ petition seeking mandamus.

* Alternative Remedy: The RP Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for challenging elections. Dr. Warunjikar further argued that the petition was an abuse of process, potentially filed to circumvent PIL rules, and that the petitioner had missed the 45-day deadline for filing an election petition.

Court's Rationale for Dismissal

The High Court meticulously addressed the objections and the petitioner's arguments, ultimately siding with the respondents. Key reasons for the dismissal included:

1. Failure to Make a Demand for Justice: The Court emphasized that a "demand for justice" is a prerequisite for seeking a writ of mandamus. > "Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the ECI in making any such ‘demand for justice’ on any of the issues as raised in the petition, before approaching this Court and in making prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus." (Para 16, citing Sansar Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India )

2. Lack of Locus Standi and Legal Injury: The Court found that the petitioner, as a single voter, did not have the standing to bring such a sweeping challenge. > "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... Even to assail the constitutionality of a provision, the person invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction needs to have suffered a legal injury. In the present case we do not find “a scratch” of a legal grievance, much less “any legal injury”." (Paras 18, 20)

3. Constitutional and Statutory Bar: The Court reaffirmed the principle enshrined in Article 329(b) of the Constitution and the RP Act, 1951. > "As a requirement of such constitutional provision the RP Act, 1951 in Part VI makes adequate provisions for filing of election petitions before the High Court, to challenge the elections. Such provisions constitute a Code by itself and cannot be by-passed in questioning the solemnity of the elections..." (Para 18)

4. Petition Based on Conjecture and Insufficient Material: The Court criticized the petition's foundation on an RTI reply to a third party and newspaper reports, lacking tangible evidence. > "Thus, on such extremely weak, feeble and inadequate plea, the petitioner is desirous to maintain this writ petition." (Para 14) > "We are also 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..." (Para 31)

5. Challenge to EVMs Unfounded: The Court dismissed arguments for reverting to paper ballots, citing the Supreme Court's recent affirmation of EVM integrity in Association for Democratic Reforms Vs. Election Commission of India & Anr. > The Court quoted Justice Sanjiv Khanna 's observation: "We must reject as foible and unsound the submission to return to the ballot paper system. The weakness of the ballot paper system is well known and documented." and Justice Dipankar Datta's view that such challenges may "derail the election process that is by creating unnecessary doubts in the minds of electorate." (Paras 24, 25)

6. No Violation of Fundamental Rights or Basic Structure: The Court held that the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental one, and found no basis for the claim that the basic structure of the Constitution was violated.

Final Decision and Implications

The Bombay High Court summarily rejected the writ petition, deeming it a "gross abuse of the process of law." While noting that the hearing consumed significant judicial time, the Court refrained from imposing costs.

This judgment reinforces established legal principles regarding challenges to electoral processes: the paramountcy of the election petition mechanism under the RP Act, 1951, the necessity for a petitioner to demonstrate locus standi and legal injury, and the requirement of a prior demand for justice before seeking mandamus. It also underscores the judiciary's reluctance to entertain challenges to the electoral system based on mere suspicion or unsubstantiated claims, especially in light of definitive Supreme Court rulings on issues like EVM usage.