Latest news with #VanchitBahujanAaghadi
The Hindu
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Prakash Ambedkar criticises Bombay HC dismissal of petition on 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections
Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi (VBA) leader and senior advocate Prakash Ambedkar on Thursday (June 26, 2025) expressed disappointment over the Bombay High Court's dismissal of a petition questioning the legitimacy of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. He alleged that the court had failed to address serious concerns related to bogus voting and non-transparency in the electoral process. The petition, filed by Mumbai resident Chetan Chandrakant Ahire and argued by Mr. Ambedkar, sought to set aside the election results, citing, among other issues, a significant number of votes allegedly cast after the official 6 p.m. deadline on polling day. Mr. Ahire had also submitted a Right to Information (RTI) request for data on these votes, but the Election Commission reportedly stated that such information was 'not available'. 'Chetan Ahire raised an important issue about whether the election was conducted freely and fairly. We filed RTI applications seeking clarity on post-deadline votes and slips issued by polling officers but received no concrete response. The court was expected to examine this but failed to do so,' Mr. Ambedkar said at a press conference. He referred to an Election Commission press note that mentioned nearly 76 lakh votes were cast after the prescribed time limit. 'We wanted to know whether polling slips were issued in accordance with procedure. Was there a record of it? If the slips are not available, how do we trust that these votes were legitimate?' he asked. On June 25, a Division Bench comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif Doctor dismissed the petition, calling it a 'gross abuse of the process of law'. The Bench held that the plea lacked legal merit, substance, and locus standi. 'We have no manner of doubt that this writ petition needs to be summarily rejected. It is accordingly rejected. The hearing of this petition has practically taken the whole day leaving aside our urgent cause list, and for such reason the petition would certainly warrant dismissal with cost, however, we refrain from doing so,' the Bench said. The court also noted that the petition relied primarily on an RTI reply received by journalist Venkatesh Nayak and speculative newspaper reports. 'There is no other material whatsoever, much less of any authenticity. We wonder as to how the petitioner can have a locus standi to seek such wide, sweeping and drastic reliefs to question the entire elections of the State Legislative Assembly,' the court observed. The judgment further stated that such matters are barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which stipulates that no election shall be called into question except by an election petition. Mr. Ambedkar criticised the court's approach, stating that the petition had been filed under writ jurisdiction and was not intended as an election petition. 'We had approached the court under writ jurisdiction, seeking accountability and transparency. Instead, the court treated it like an election petition and dismissed it without addressing our main concerns,' he said. He maintained that documentary evidence, including the Election Commission's press note and a report published in Loksatta, had been submitted to support the claims. 'But the judge said such reports lack strength. Then how else can we bring these issues to light?' he asked. Citing alleged mismatches in vote counts at 96 polling stations, Mr. Ambedkar said RTI queries on these discrepancies were met with the response that the information was not available. 'The court's judgment doesn't answer whether this is legal or not,' he said. The Bench had found no evidence of fraud or illegal voting and said the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any personal legal injury or enforceable right. 'We do not find 'a scratch' of a legal grievance, much less any legal injury,' the court remarked, rejecting the argument that post-deadline votes undermined the electoral process. 'This is not a personal dispute. If no documentation exists for votes cast after polling hours, two serious doubts arise — either polling officers pressed the buttons themselves, or they acted under someone's instructions,' Mr. Ambedkar said, adding that the court had missed an opportunity to reinforce transparency and accountability. 'Unfortunately, this judgment sets a precedent that may obstruct future efforts to seek electoral accountability,' he said.
Indian Express
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why Ambedkarite politics is losing its autonomy in India
Written by Jadumani Mahanand The marginalisation of Ambedkarite electoral politics necessitates serious attention. Ambedkarite electoral politics uses elections as a means to challenge the power and domination of mainstream upper-caste parties, but lacks resources. Such politics, despite having an autonomous vision for the nation, is often reduced to caste-sectarian politics through a casteist gaze. Ironically, B R Ambedkar was unable to win an election in his time. His political significance was advanced in the 1990s by Kanshi Ram. For him, a single transferable vote was an important weapon in electoral democracy to achieve power. However, he was critical of the reserved constituency. Reiterating Ambedkar's views in What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchable, Kanshi Ram argued that a reserved constituency creates 'stooges' in electoral democracy. As the political discourse now again centres on Ambedkar — both the ruling party and the Opposition invoking him on many occasions — it is high time to look at what has gone wrong with Ambedkarite politics in the country. In the 18th general elections, the presence of Ambedkarite forces declined drastically compared to that of upper-caste parties. In Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, where they used to be a formidable force, Dalit parties drew a blank. The BSP's presence has become negligible at the all-India level. Similarly, the Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi is insignificant in Maharashtra. Before 2014, the BSP used to get third position in a few states as a pan-Indian party. However, its vote share has declined to 2.07 per cent, leading to its possible loss of national party status. There is a rupture in Dalit leadership. Chandrashekhar Azad seems to be gradually becoming an alternative voice in UP and a few other states. Both these parties together might offer a better future for Ambedkarite politics, but they have been standing against each other, splitting the votes. Since Independence, Ambedkarite politics was not able to find much space as the representatives in the state assemblies and Parliament are often co-opted by the upper caste political parties. Now, there are only two autonomous Dalit voices in Parliament: Chandrashekhar Azad and Thol. Thirumavalavan. Mallikarjun Kharge's presidency of Congress has pushed the party to embrace Ambedkarite language. On the other side, the Lok Janshakti Party's leader, Chirag Paswan, is mostly found silent when it comes to independently raising Dalit issues. The problem of caste in Indian politics is reduced to the Dalit question. Parties are happy with giving seats to the reserved constituency, sometimes with a few more portfolios — the President's position and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The upper castes' supremacy in Parliament has never been termed 'casteist politics'. Hence, the annihilation of caste has never been a question. These upper castes are the best allies of the upper class; Ambedkar rightly pointed out that the Brahman-Bania nexus is the core of electoral democracy. At least 93 per cent of the victorious candidates in the last Lok Sabha elections were crorepatis. However, since 2014, protecting democracy and the Constitution has been the core political vocabulary of Opposition parties. The narrative is created to challenge the BJP's undermining of the values of the Constitution. As a result, Dalit votes shifted to Congress. Why is it only Dalits' burden to protect the Constitution? In 2018, when the BJP tried to dilute the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, Dalits protested across states. Around 12 Dalits were killed, several were injured, and many cases were filed against them. Still, Dalits are always to protect the Indian Constitution through elections and the civil rights movement. But no election is fought to ban caste violence against Dalits. Often, Dalit autonomous parties, or a candidate, are called the B-team of the BJP or the A-team of Congress. Moreover, as long as Dalit votes are used to protect the Indian Constitution, it satisfies the liberal conscience. Due to this appropriation and misrepresentation, there is a continuous decline in autonomous Ambedkarite politics. Their political autonomy creates a threat to upper-caste parties. If Dalits are to protect the Constitution, they have to find and invoke an autonomous voice beyond the upper-caste — either secular or priestly — domain of politics. The writer is assistant professor, political science, O P Jindal University. Views are personal
