Maharashtra Assembly Polls: Bombay High Court reserves order on votes after 6 pm
The Bombay High Court on Monday reserved its order on the plea seeking that the Maharashtra Assembly election results of 2024, be declared null and void 'due to the non-compliance with established legal provisions, procedural lapses and irregularities in the legal process.' During the hearing on Monday, the Election Commission of India (ECI) raised Preliminary objections to the petition while arguing that the court did not need to go into the merits of the petition at all.The bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor said that the order will be passed on Wednesday. The entire issue in the petition revolves around 76 lakh votes polled after 6pm on the Maharashtra Assembly election day.The petition filed by a Mumbaikar, Chetan Ahire and argued by advocate Prakash Ambedkar is based on the issue raised by opposition parties including Ambedkar's party Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, about high voter turnout post 6pm on polling day and details of the same allegedly not being provided by the ECI.After the Assembly election, the ECI had put out a data saying that 76 lakh votes were cast post 6pm during the Maharashtra Assembly polling day on November 20, 2024. However, when the details of the voters who cast their vote late in the day were sought by the opposition parties, it was allegedly not given by the ECI.During the hearing, the bench asked Ambedkar if post 6 pm voting happened during Lok Sabha or any other election. Ambedkar replied that it does happen and data has always been collated since the first election but it was not shared when asked this election. At this, the bench said, 'if this is established practice that polling does take place post 6pm, then why did you not question the Lok Sabha election? Where is the statement in your petition? Our question is about the pattern. How was there a departure this time from earlier practice?'Ambedkar replied that the concern was only for the Assembly election last year. 'Those who are elected are not elected by free and fair election. It was manipulated. A deceit has been used. Either by the officials themselves or the ECI. A fraud on the Constitution cannot be allowed to remain. If they have documents then they can still come forward. It is the faith of the common man that is shaken,' submitted Ambedkar. However the bench replied that it was a grey idea as no one knows who the voters after 6pm voted for. 'What if the winning candidates did not get any votes in polls post 6pm? This pattern of voting must have been followed even in Lok Sabha, why was no grievance made for that?'Advocate Ashutosh KUmbhakoni appearing for the ECI took preliminary objection to the petition being argued by Ambedkar. Kumbhakoni submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge elections to all 288 constituencies in Maharashtra and that there is no cause of action spelled out for approaching this Court under the Writ jurisdiction. Kumbhakoni submitted that the winning candidates have not been made party to the petition so the election cannot be set aside behind their back.Advocate Uday Warunjikar, appearing for the Union of India too, submitted that the petitioner should have filed an Election Petition which has a limit of 45 days since declaration of results, but since the petitioner had missed the opportunity, he has approached the court with a Writ petition. 'Moreover the petitioner is not seeking anything for himself but is asking this for the public at large so he should have filed a Public Interest Litigation,' said Warnujikar raising issues of maintainability of the petition at the preliminary stage. - EndsMust Watch
advertisement
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Aftershocks of 1975 Emergency: When Referendum almost made it to Constitution
NEW DELHI: Founding fathers of the Constitution of India fought hard to keep 'Referendum' out of it, but it almost made it to the statute in 1978 in the aftermath of Emergency. The then Janata government proposed 'referendum' being part of the Constitution as an additional 'safeguard' to thwart any repeat of Emergency-like situation and even got it passed in the Lok Sabha, but the idea had to be dropped as it could not cut the mustard in the Rajya Sabha. Several Janata Party leaders and their allies were also not very comfortable with the idea of going back to the public despite having their own government being in power. The Constitution Amendment Bill of 1978, proposed by the then Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, cited the Emergency as an example when fundamental rights, including those of life and liberty, granted to citizens by the Constitution can be taken away by a transient majority. It said that it was necessary to provide adequate safeguards against the recurrence of such a contingency in future and to ensure to people themselves an effective voice in determining the form of government under which they are to live. The bill sought that "certain changes" in the Constitution can be made only if they are approved by the people of India by a majority of votes at a referendum in which at least 51 percent of the electorate participate. It would have been applicable for Constitutional amendments that were capable of impairing its secular or democratic character, abridging or taking away fundamental rights prejudicing or impeding free and fair elections on the basis of adult suffrage and compromising the independence of judiciary. Bhushan faced strong opposition in Parliament, including from some of his own colleagues, and many asked was it not akin to not trusting the mandate already given by people while electing the government. Some MPs also raised question of huge expenses that could be incurred by going to the public again and again, while some suspected a "referendum" could be used by the government in power to push majority agenda like imposition of Hindi etc. A few supported the idea but said the referendum should be for 75 percent of voters, while a few others went out to demand that the Constitution also mostly provide for a referendum provision giving people the power to recall an MP or a government if they were not satisfied with their work. While the long-winding debates in the two houses saw several interesting friendly and not-so-friendly exchanges among the MPs, the idea had to be dropped with the minister himself admitting on several occasions that he could probably not project the idea properly. This was also the first time in the country's parliamentary history that a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by the Lok Sabha was returned by the Rajya Sabha and the bill had to be changed according to the portions rejected by the house of elders. During one such exchange, he asked AR Antulay, then Congress Rajya Sabha MP, if he would accept if it is passed by two-third majority of two houses of Parliament that he was a "small girl" and should there not be a provision to get it corrected. Antulay responded jokingly what the minister will do if it is passed by Parliament that Bhushan is "an old girl." Bhushan replied that he would not challenge it, to which Antulay replied still he was not convinced that the Supreme Court should get into it. Bhupesh Gupta, a Left MP, joined the banter and said that he was quite sure Antulay will welcome it if the Supreme Court says he is a small girl. In the Lok Sabha also, Bhushan's referendum proposal triggered an intense debate and some of the most interesting nuggets came from socialist MP HV Kamath, who was also a member of the Constituent Assembly when the Constitution was being framed. Kamath, known for joining almost all discussions in the Lok Sabha and in the Constituent Assembly before that, suggested to Bhushan that the referendum should be successful only with 75 percent of votes though he could also agree to one-third support of electors. In the Constituent Assembly, where he was among the few members to strongly oppose any Emergency provision being added, he had also suggested that voters of a constituency should be given power to recall their MP or for failure to properly discharge his or her duties. Kamath's proposal was rejected. The original draft of the Constitution did not provide for direct voting by people on law-making matters through a referendum, but several members in the Constituent Assembly called for it on issues like national language, national script, national anthem, international numerals and cow slaughter. Some members said that a referendum could empower sovereignty of people and address adverse issues arising from absolute power, while others proposed it as a tool to handle situations when legislature and executive are not on the same page. Mahavir Tyagi, elected to the Constituent Assembly from the United Provinces on a Congress Party ticket, advocated for the Constitution empowering people with the right to overthrow a government which acts destructively against the rights of people. Several members cited examples from other countries, including Switzerland, US, Canada and Ireland to call for a referendum provision, but others opposed it vehemently as unpractical, expensive and restrictive. President Rajendra Prasad rejected all those demands citing lack of any provision for referendum in the Constitution. BR Ambedkar was very categorical: "The Draft Constitution has eliminated the elaborate and difficult procedures such as a decision by a convention or a referendum." He said the powers of amendment are left with the central and provincial legislatures. Almost similar logics came up in Parliament nearly 30 years later in 1978 in favour of referendum, but they met similar opposition with one additional point made by most anti-referendum voices -- even general elections hardly see more than 50 percent voting and expecting more than 50 percent electors voting in a referendum was unthinkable.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Rahul Gandhi condemns torture of two dalit youths in Odisha, demands arrest of culprits
Bhubaneswar, June 24 (UNI) Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has strongly condemned the inhuman torture inflicted on two Dalit youths in Singipur village under Dharakot block of Ganjam district in Odisha. Terming the incident a stark reminder that caste discrimination still persists, Rahul stated on social media, "This incident is a mirror for those who say caste is no longer an issue." He demanded the immediate arrest and strict punishment of the culprits involved. "The country is governed by the Constitution, not by the selective memory of individuals," Rahul Gandhi remarked. Describing the brutality, the Congress leader said the Dalit youths were forced to kneel, eat grass, drink dirty water, and were paraded through the streets on their knees. He called the act not just inhuman but a barbaric assault on the ideals of humanity. "Every incident that violates the dignity of Dalits is an attack on Baba Saheb Ambedkar's Constitution," he emphasized. Rahul alleged that such incidents are becoming increasingly common in BJP-ruled states due to politics rooted in hatred and discrimination. He further stated that atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and women have risen alarmingly in Odisha. The horrifying incident, which occurred in Dharakote block of Ganjam district, went viral on social media. The video shows the two Dalit youths being publicly humiliated and tortured over mere suspicion of cattle smuggling. The victims, residents of Haripur village, were reportedly transporting three cows to Singipur as dowry for a wedding when they were stopped by a mob. On suspicion of illegal cow smuggling, the mob tied them with ropes, paraded them through the village on their knees, and forced them to drink dirty drain water. UNI DP PRS
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Linguist calls for cultural unity among speakers of Dravidian languages
Linguist Ganesh Devy has called for cultural unity among Dravidian languages. 'We should all realise that no language is our enemy. Tamil or any other South Indian language is not the enemy of Kannada,' he said in Dharwad on June 22. 'There is no point in harbouring hostility towards speakers of Tamil or any other southern language, or vice versa. Our real opposition should be directed towards Hindi imposition,' he said after inaugurating a symposium 'The Identity of the Kannada Language organised by the Karnatak Vidyavardhakh Sangha. Prof. Devy emphasised the need for unity among the Dravidian language-speaking States of the south to launch a collective resistance against Hindi imposition. He said that population growth in south Indian States is declining, while the population in Hindi-speaking northern States is increasing. Delimitation (reallocation of Lok Sabha constituencies) based on population in the future is likely to reduce the number of constituencies in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Kerala, and an increase in the north. As a result, southern States could have reduced representation in Central politics, he warned. He said that southern States must stop quarrelling among themselves and recognise this emerging political marginalisation. 'We must understand northern Indian politics, and coexist peacefully. Why fight between languages? Earlier, the British followed a divide-and-rule policy. What's happening now is similar. People speaking Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Marathi are being divided and ruled. This must end immediately,' he said. Veteran writer Sangamesh Savadattimath said a controversial statement by a so-called scholar about the origin of Kannada language had awakened the pride of Kannada speakers, likening them to a sleeping lion that has now risen as a roaring tiger. He noted that occasional provocative remarks by certain Tamil and Marathi chauvinists continue to stir Kannada pride. However, once the response comes out, those voices fall silent. 'It is unfortunate that regardless of which government is in power, the struggle to preserve Kannada continues,' he said. KVS president Chandrakant Bellad released Bhashe-Buduku, a book edited by Santosh Hanagal, the presence of KVS general secretary Shankar Halagatti, Dhanvant Hajavagal, Veeranna Waddin, and Sanjiv Kulkarni.
