Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought to challenge the entire election to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly conducted on 20 November 2024, with results declared on 24 November 2024. Petitioner Chetan Chandrakant Ahire, represented by counsel Prakash Ambedkar, filed against Union of India, Chief Election Commissioner, Chief Electoral Officer, and State of Maharashtra. The petition contained thirteen prayers, including disclosure of voting data, declaration of election results as null and void, withdrawal of election certificates, independent audit of EVMs and VVPATs, and return to paper ballots. Petitioner alleged that 6.80% of total votes, approximately 76 lakh votes, were cast after 6 PM, the scheduled close of poll, and that Election Commission of India had no data on these votes. The contention was based on an RTI application filed on 18 December 2024 by Venkatesh Nayak seeking constituency-wise total number of pre-numbered slips issued by Presiding Officers during Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections. The CPIO-ECI replied that such information was not available. Petitioner argued that this lack of data indicated illegal voting and vitiated the election process. He relied on Handbook for Returning Officer 2023 paragraph 13.47, which provides for distribution of pre-numbered slips to electors present at close of poll, and argued Returning Officers' failure to maintain such information was a clear indication of illegal voting. The legal issues raised included maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 when statutory remedy of election petition under Section 80 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 exists; whether votes cast after 6 PM without token data are illegal and unconstitutional; constitutional validity of amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; whether ECI guidelines suspend Returning Officer powers under Rule 56D; and requirement of independent audit of EVMs/VVPATs and return to paper ballots. Petitioner submitted that no remedy of election petition was available, so Article 226 jurisdiction should be exercised. He contended that inclusion of 76 lakh votes was a fraud on the Constitution and undermined common man's faith in election process. Relied on Mohinder Singh Gill and A.C. Jose. Argued ECI failed constitutional obligations. The available judgment text records only oral submissions; the bench noted the wide and peculiar reliefs and extensive arguments but did not record a final analysis or decision. The excerpt ends during the petitioner's submissions. No final decision or operative directions are mentioned in the provided judgment excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction in Election Matters - Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 80 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioner contended that no remedy of election petition exists and sought to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction to nullify entire State Legislative Assembly election based on alleged procedural lapses. The court was considering whether Article 226 could be exercised despite statutory election dispute mechanism, but no final ruling is recorded in the available excerpt (Paras 1-2, 5). B) Election Law - Validity of Votes Cast After Scheduled Poll Closing Time - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 56D; Handbook for Returning Officer 2023, Para 13.47 - Petitioner alleged that 76 lakh votes (6.80% of total) cast after 6 PM were illegal because Election Commission of India had no constituency-wise data of pre-numbered slips; petitioner argued inclusion of such votes was fraud on Constitution and vitiated free and fair elections. The court noted the submissions and had not yet rendered final decision (Paras 2-5). C) Election Law - Transparency and Disclosure Obligations - Right to Information Act, 2005; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Petitioner relied on RTI reply stating that information on constituency-wise pre-numbered slips was not available; contended that non-disclosure undermined sanctity of electoral process and sought detailed disclosure before court. The court was examining whether failure to maintain such data rendered election void (Paras 1-3). D) Election Law - Constitutional Validity of Rule 93(2)(a) Amendment - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 93(2)(a) - Petitioner sought declaration that amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of transparency and accountability principles, and prayed to quash it. The court heard submissions without a final determination in the excerpt (Para 1(h), 5). E) Election Law - EVM/VVPAT Integrity and Paper Ballots - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioner sought independent comprehensive audit of EVMs and VVPAT software/hardware, public access to CCTV footage and video recordings, and reversion to paper ballots due to technical and reliability concerns. The court was considering these reliefs but no final order was recorded (Para 1(i)-(l), 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can challenge the entire Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election when a statutory remedy under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 exists; whether votes cast after the scheduled closing time of 6 PM using tokens are illegal due to lack of data; whether Rule 93(2)(a) amendment and ECI guidelines are unconstitutional; whether EVMs/VVPATs require independent audit.
Law Points
- Article 226 jurisdiction in election matters
- Section 80 of Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- free and fair elections
- token distribution at close of poll
- EVM/VVPAT transparency
- Rule 56D Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961
- Rule 93(2)(a) Conduct of Election Rules
