No material to indicate votes cast in name of dead people in Dhule LS seat: HC
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Bombay high court's Aurangabad bench has dismissed BJP leader and former minister of state for defence Subhash Bhamre's election petition that Congress nominee Shobha Bachchav's election as MP from Dhule Parliamentary Constituency in Nashik district in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls be set aside on the grounds of irregularities.
The court allowed Bachchav's application in the same matter seeking dismissal of Bhamre's election petition.
Bhamre polled over 5.80 lakh votes as against over 5.83 lakh votes polled by Bachchav. The victory margin was over 3,800 votes. Of the six assembly segments that fall in Dhule Parliamentary Constituency, Bhamre focused his election petition on the polling in Malegaon Central segment from where he could muster only 4,542 votes as against over 1.98 votes polled by Bachchav.
Bhamre contended that a large number of votes were cast in the name of dead voters, who continued to figure in the electoral roll, and multiple votes were cast in the name of same people in different booths. All these votes were cast in favour of the winning candidate, he contended.
The bench of Justice Arun Pednekar, however, held on June 13 that there was no material placed on record to indicate that votes were cast in the name of dead people.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Cardiologists: 1 Teaspoon of This Before Bed Melts Belly Fat Like Crazy
Hollywood News | USA
Click Here
Undo
Similarly, there was no material to substantiate the allegation of multiple votes cast in the name of same people.
"By merely having names of dead people on the electoral roll this court will not presume that votes are cast in their names. The polling agents in the booth are aware of the votes cast by people and an affidavit of polling agents present in the polling station stating that votes are cast against dead persons would at least indicate that voting has taken place against the name of dead persons," the bench said while pointing out that there was no affidavit by polling agents that they have noticed votes being cast in the name of dead people or that the polling agent had raised objection to the casting of votes in the name of dead people.
The bench cited provisions under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 relating to appointment of polling agents and safeguards against impersonation, and ruled, "Presently, there is no material before the court to indicate that large number of persons have cast votes against the names of dead people so as to materially affect the election and this court would not enter into inquiry of the same."
"In the election petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected Under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure," the bench held.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Rain, rallies & rhetoric mark final day
Kozhikode: The three-week campaign for the high-stakes Nilambur bypoll — whose timing before the local body polls and 2026 assembly election gave it significant political importance — came to an end on Monday. Despite heavy rain in Nilambur town, major political parties undertook a high-octane kottikalasham (festive closing ceremony), turning it into a vibrant show of strength. UDF's Aryadan Shoukath, LDF's M Swaraj and NDA's Mohan George held impressive roadshows, arriving at their designated spots in town with flags, drums, DJ music and campaign songs that added colour to the event. Independent candidate PV Anvar, who triggered the bypoll by resigning his MLA post, skipped the grand finale and focused on grassroots outreach in Amarambalam panchayat. While UDF framed the bypoll as a semi-final before assembly elections and a 'public trial' of the Pinarayi Vijayan govt's nine years of alleged misrule, LDF pitched it as a vote to continue the govt's development and welfare initiatives. Factors that made the bypoll an intense contest included the 'do-or-die' campaign by Congress and IUML in Nilambur, the energizing of Left cadres after CPM state secretariat member M Swaraj was fielded to retain the seat and the dramatic entry of Anvar as an independent candidate. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dermatologist: Just Add 1 Drop Of This Household Item To Any Dark Spot And Wait 3 Minutes Undo BJP, initially lukewarm in its approach, ramped up its campaign in recent days focusing on Christian voters with George as its candidate and positioning itself as a development alternative. Anvar is running a silent campaign (except for his roadshow led by TMC MP Yusuf Pathan on Monday) seeking votes against 'Pinarayism' and the political nexus he claims includes opposition leader VD Satheesan. The final day of the campaign saw high-voltage rallies. Swaraj began his roadshow from Vazhikkadavu at 9am and reached Nilambur by 3:30pm. He told supporters that although the opposition tried to rake up controversies and sow seeds of division and hatred, LDF stayed focused on development and solving people's issues. Shoukath also led a roadshow from Vazhikkadavu in an open vehicle accompanied by leaders, including Vadakara MP Shafi Parambil and many supporters on two-wheelers. He urged people to turn the bypoll into a strong verdict against nine years of neglect in Nilambur and Kerala. Around 4:30pm, Shoukath and Swaraj stood in the rain and addressed their supporters. George, who also held a roadshow, said many voters want change, with support crossing traditional party lines in his favour. Over 2.3 lakh voters are expected to vote on June 19 in the bypoll.
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
When clash erupted between T.N. government and Governor on appointing a Vice-Chancellor 40 years ago
Around a dozen State universities in Tamil Nadu currently do not have Vice-Chancellors, as Tamil Nadu remains embroiled in a legal tussle over shifting the authority to appoint them, from the Governor (in his capacity as Chancellor) to the State government. Interestingly, it is not the first time Tamil Nadu has witnessed a disagreement between the government and the Governor on this issue. A conflict took place four decades ago over the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. In 1985, during M.G. Ramachandran's tenure as Chief Minister, tensions simmered over Governor S.L. Khurana's use of his authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors. That March, Education Minister C. Aranganayagam remarked that difficulties in appointing Vice-Chancellors 'seemed peculiar to States where non-Congress (I) governments were in office.' His comment came just months after the AIADMK-Congress (I) alliance swept to power in Tamil Nadu in the aftermath of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination. Referring to similar controversies in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, Aranganayagam observed, according to The Hindu, that Governors in Congress (I)-ruled states appeared to have no issue accepting recommendations from the State government. 'This problem arose only in non-Congress (I) governed States,' he said. In the Assembly, Aranganayagam argued it would be better to vest the power to oversee universities in State governments rather than with the Governor or the Central government. Against this backdrop, in October 1985, Governor Khurana appointed S. Krishnaswamy, a well-regarded biologist, as Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The appointment caught the State government by surprise. Aranganayagam said the government had recommended C.A. Perumal, Head of the Political Science Department at University of Madras, for the post. He stated: 'The practice so far has been that the Governor consults the Chief Minister before making the appointment; in this case, the Chief Minister was not consulted. Therefore, with the Chief Minister's consent, the advice to the Governor is being forwarded. We have nothing against Dr. Krishnaswamy personally.' When asked whether the government had officially conveyed its preference to the Governor, Aranganayagam admitted that he had only informally suggested Perumal's name, but insisted the Governor ought to have consulted the Chief Minister before finalising the appointment. Later that evening, the Raj Bhavan issued a statement expressing surprise at the Minister's remarks. It emphasised that this was not the first time the Governor had appointed a Vice-Chancellor without direct consultation, noting that he had made similar decisions at least six times in the previous three years. The Governor's office stated that the process had been consistent and that in some instances — such as appointments to Madras and Bharathidasan Universities — he had disagreed with the Education Minister's recommendations and independently made the final call. The Governor's position, it said, was to choose the best candidate from the panel submitted. The Raj Bhavan also cited Section 11 of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act to support the legality of Krishnaswamy's appointment. Aranganayagam countered this by invoking Article 163(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that the Governor act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. He argued that since the Governor holds the post of Chancellor by virtue of being Governor, he cannot wield more power in the Chancellor's role than he does as Governor. He also denied that the appointment followed past practice. 'In all previous cases, the Governor appointed Vice-Chancellors only after consulting the Chief Minister and obtaining his concurrence; in this case, he has not done so,' he said. Aranganayagam added that the issue was not about the individual selected, but about the principle of who holds the appointing authority. Aranganayam felt persons belonging to the state were better equipped than 'others coming from outside' to select the appropriate person for a post. However, just a few hours later, the State government issued an official release, stating: 'It is most unfortunate that an unnecessary controversy has arisen over the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The Government, after careful consideration, holds that the appointment of Dr. S. Krishnaswamy by the Governor-Chancellor is valid and on merit. The Governor's decision is being implemented by the Government.' The Hindu reported: 'What happened between the Education Minister's assertion in the morning and the issue of the press release in the evening (putting an end to the controversy) is not quite clear. It is, however, learnt that, on behalf of the Chief Minister, an emissary (one of his Cabinet colleagues) called on the Governor at the Raj Bhavan in the afternoon and sorted out the matter.' Krishnaswamy later assumed charge as Vice-Chancellor. He told journalists he was pleased that the Education Minister had clarified, 'We have nothing against Prof. Krishnaswamy personally.' Incidentally, then Finance Minister V.R. Nedunchezhiyan welcomed the appointment, saying, 'I am happy that an internationally-known scientist has been chosen for the position.'
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Bindal gets interim bail in attempt to murder case
The Himachal Pradesh high court on Tuesday granted interim bail to BJP state president Dr Rajiv Bindal and former minister and sitting Paonta Sahib MLA Chaudhary Sukhram in a case registered under serious charges including attempt to murder. Granting relief justice Virender Singh on Tuesday directed the police 'not to take any coercive action' against Bindal, Sukhram and one Alka Rani. The police have filed a status report before the high court. The case will now be listed on June 24. 'The government to suppress the political opponents have got this case registered as part of political conspiracy,' said Bindal while talking to HT. A day after booking 100 protesters, including BJP state president Rajiv Bindal and Paonta Sahib MLA Sukhram Chaudhary, for defying prohibitory orders and assembling in front of Majra police station in Himachal's Sirmaur, the police have added Section 109 of the BNS (attempt to murder) against the protesters. The section was added after about 10 people, including police personnel, were injured in stone pelting and the head constable was injured with a sharp-edged weapon. The stone-pelting followed protests after a 19-year-old man from Kiratpur village eloped with an 18-year-old woman from different faith in a nearby village under Majra police station limits on June 4. The girl's family had lodged a complaint, but even after 10 days, no action was taken. Some rganisations and local people have been protesting for the last few days, demanding strict action against the 'abductor'. On Friday, they blocked the Nahan-Paonta highway at Majra, about 25 km from Nahan, for about an hour. On Friday evening, as an angry crowd of protesters began moving towards the eloped man's house, locals from the other side resorted to stone-pelting, which the protesters retaliated against. Subsequently, police resorted to lathicharge to bring the situation under control. A 36-hour dharna, led by Bindal in the Majra area, ended on Saturday after the man and woman were traced.
