SC dismisses plea alleging discrepancies in 2024 Maharashtra Assembly polls
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh declined the plea filed by one
Chetan Chandrakant Ahire
against a
Bombay High Court
order of June 2025.
Ahire sought to declare the election results as void on the allegation that about 75 lakh
bogus voters
had cast their votes after the closing of the polls at 6 pm.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
You might be interested in the content above
adobe.com
Undo
He sought a declaration that the results across all 288 assembly constituencies in the state be set aside due to alleged violations in the polling process.
The petitioner also sought a constituency-wise breakdown of votes cast outside official hours and the revocation of election certificates for successful candidates.
Live Events
The High Court had dismissed his plea, observing that the petition was founded solely on a single newspaper report, contained speculative and unsubstantiated claims, and amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
INDIA bloc VP poll pick: Ex-SC judge who delivered order outlawing Salwa Judum
Former Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy, 79, who delivered the landmark 2011 judgement outlawing the Salwa Judum militia in Chhattisgarh, was on Tuesday named as the Opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) candidate for the September 9 Vice Presidential election. Former Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy. (Sourced) A bench of justices Reddy and SS Nijjar disbanded Salwa Judum, calling arming civilians 'unethical and dangerous' and violative of the Constitution's Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life). The Salwa Judum, which was accused of human rights abuses, was a state-sponsored militia raised in 2005 to counter Maoist insurgency. It comprised largely tribal youth armed with basic training and firearms. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who announced Justice (retd) Reddy's candidature, said opposition parties decided to have a common candidate, and the decision has been taken unanimously. He called the candidature a big achievement for democracy. Justice (retd) Reddy has authored the book 'Preamble of the Constitution'. He has highlighted the response of Bhimrao Ambedkar, who chaired the committee that drafted the Constitution, to right-wing groups, which criticised it for borrowing ideas. He noted that Ambedkar said there was no shame in it and that it is wise to adopt good ideas, no matter where they come from. Justice (retd) Reddy has questioned critics belittling the contribution of the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, asking whether they even understand his depth of knowledge evident in his seminal work 'The Discovery of India', exploring the Upanishads, the Himalayas, the Ganga, the Aryans, and Mohenjo Daro. He challenged those who pretend to be learned while unfairly blaming Nehru. Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, former central information commissioner, said Justice (retd) Reddy was deeply committed as a judge to the rule of law. He said he dedicated his life to upholding constitutional values in the democratic framework. 'Some judges have etched their names in history through their unwavering integrity, distinctive vision, and faith in democratic principles. Justice (retd) B Sudarshan Reddy is one among them,' he said. Justice (retd) Reddy, who was due to file his nomination on August 21, was born into an agricultural family on July 8, 1946, in Telangana's Ranga Reddy. He graduated in law from Osmania University in Hyderabad in 1971 and started practising in the Hyderabad civil courts. Justice (retd) Reddy was named the government pleader in August 1988 in the Andhra Pradesh high court and argued the revenue department cases. He continued in the post until January 1990. He was appointed as an additional standing counsel for the central government and elected as Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association president in 1993. Elevated as an additional high court judge in May 1995, he was appointed as the Gauhati high court Chief Justice in December 2005. He was elevated as a Supreme Court judge in January 2007 and retired in July 2011. Justice (retd) Reddy was appointed Goa's first Lokayukta in March 2013. He resigned from the post on personal grounds in October 2013. A supporter of the separate Telangana state, Justice (retd) Reddy also supported the bifurcation of the combined Andhra Pradesh high court
NDTV
a minute ago
- NDTV
"Are You Serious?" Supreme Court Asks Kerala In Presidential Reference Hearing
New Delhi: 'Are you really serious...' an incredulous Chief Justice BR Gavai asked the Kerala government Tuesday as a five-judge Constitution Bench began hearing the presidential reference over the top court's April 12 order setting the President and Governors to assent to bills passed by states. "Why can't a five-judge bench hear when the president is asking (a question)? What is wrong with that?" the Chief Justice asked ahead of a potentially landmark hearing concerning power to assent (or withhold assent) to bills passed by state governments, and the larger question of whether the Supreme Court can fix timelines for the President or a Governor to act on a bill. The Chief Justice's incredulity was in response to former Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, referring to a 'series' of earlier verdicts by the top court that held of a presidential reference is not maintainable. To this the Chief Justice asked, "... these judgments you are relying on... are they five judges?" Mr Venugopal said, "No... three and two judges. The question of a five-judge bench would arise if a substantial question of law arises", and the Chief Justice shot back, "But when the President is asking, what is wrong?" In its April 12 order, in a case related to Tamil Nadu's ruling DMK and Governor RN Ravi, the Supreme Court had sought to regulate this process and ordered that the constitutional heads follow a timeline to clear the pending bills. It ordered, "We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs... and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received." The judgment drew pushback, with President Droupadi Murmu raising queries to the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of such timelines. Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President posed 14 questions to the top court, seeking its opinion on the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislatures. A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in July fixed a time schedule to hear the Presidential reference case and decide on the questions referred to it by the President. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, had asked the Centre and states to submit their written submissions by August 12.
Scroll.in
a minute ago
- Scroll.in
Press bodies criticise sedition charges against Siddharth Varadarajan, Karan Thapar of ‘The Wire'
The Press Club of India and the Indian Women's Press Corps on Tuesday criticised the sedition case filed against journalists Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar of The Wire by the Assam Police. The associations said that the first information report registered against Varadarajan, the founding editor of the news portal, and Thapar were vindictive actions by the police. The press bodies demanded the immediate withdrawal of the cases against the two journalists. They also demanded the withdrawal of the 'draconian' Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita invoked in the matter, which they said threatens freedom of expression under Article 19(1)a of the Constitution. Section 152 pertains to acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. On August 12, the Assam Police's Crime Branch in Guwahati issued a summons to Varadarajan in an FIR pertaining to an article about Operation Sindoor published in The Wire . The summons came even as the Supreme Court, on the same day, had granted Varadarajan and members of the foundation running the news outlet protection from arrest in another FIR filed by the Assam Police. The Wire received summons for Thapar on Monday, said the news outlet. Ankur Jain, the joint commissioner of police in Guwahati, told Scroll that the summons had been issued as the Supreme Court order had come in relation to a case filed in 'some other district'. In the latest notice, Varadarajan and Thapar has been directed to appear for questioning before the investigating officer in Panbazar on Friday. The earlier case against Varadarajan was registered at Morigaon police station on July 11 under Section 152. It followed the publication of an article about Operation Sindoor titled ''IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership's Constraints': Indian Defence Attache'. The fresh summons issued to Varadarajan cites the same charges, in addition to sections of the BNS pertaining to promoting enmity between different groups, publishing false or misleading information and criminal conspiracy. On Tuesday, the news associations noted that the Supreme Court had in May 2022 ordered proceedings and criminal prosecutions for sedition under Section 124A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code to be kept in abeyance . Section 152 of the BNS is a 'repackaged version' of Section 124A of the IPC, the press bodies said. The organisations noted that The Wire had challenged Section 152 of the BNS and that the Supreme Court had issued notice to the government on August 12. The registration of the FIR against Varadarajan and Thapar 'makes it apparent that Section 152 has become a tool' to target the media. Critics have also argued in the Supreme Court, in a separate case, that Section 124A was slipped into the law again in the guise of Section 152 when the BNS replaced the IPC in July 2024.
