The Supreme Court of India refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a petition that challenged the validity of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections citing alleged bogus voting. The petition was filed by a Vikhroli voter, who claimed that over 76 lakh votes were cast after the official 6 pm polling deadline without proper oversight from the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The Bombay High Court had earlier condemned the petition as a “gross abuse of the process of law,” emphasizing that the petitioner lacked the necessary legal standing, or locus standi, to question the election process across all 288 constituencies in Maharashtra. The High Court had also noted that the petition relied heavily on third-party information and was devoid of any valid election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
During the Supreme Court hearing, the Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh expressed similar reservations on the petitioner’s locus standi. The Bench questioned whether a single voter could challenge the entire electoral process without demonstrating direct legal injury.
Speaking from Delhi after the hearing, the plaintiff’s advocate and Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi chief, Prakash Ambedkar, lamented the Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the petition. “The question centred around who is Chetan Ahire. We said that he is a citizen of the country and a voter. But the court unfortunately did not hear it. If this is going to be the trend, where a citizen and a voter cannot file a petition or appeal, then in the coming days no one will file petitions,” he said, reflecting concerns about access to legal remedies for ordinary voters.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal upholds the principle that election petitions must meet strict legal criteria, including clear demonstration of personal legal grievance. It also underlines the judiciary’s reluctance to entertain sweeping challenges to entire elections based on generalized or unverified allegations. The Court has reaffirmed the robustness of electoral processes and the need for focused, substantiated legal challenges rather than broad-based petitions lacking direct locus.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Pratik R. Bombarde