The Aurangabad bench of the Supreme Court in Mumbai rejected the election petition filed by a former member of the Subhash Ramrao Bhamre parliament by Bharatiya Janat, which challenged the election of Shob Dinesh Bacchav of Dhule Lok Sabha last year. The order was available on Monday.
Mr. Bhamre secured his second highest voices. The elected candidate provided 5,83,866 votes, while the petitioner provided 5 80 035 votes. He lost a narrow span of 3,831 votes.
In the petition Mr. Bhamre claimed that after the investigation he met from the inhabitants of Malegaon and party workers with him, that the voices were asked in the name of persons who were already dead and that these voices were asked in favor of Mrs Bacchav. He claimed that more votes were handed over at different stalls under the same names that the women clad Burkha could also vote, although their names were not on election roles, and all these voices were for Mrs. Bacchav.
Mrs. Bacchav tried to dismiss the lawsuit and claimed that the appellant’s accusations were vague and unsupported. “The original electoral petition does not publish the source of information where the election agent has received information that votes from approximately six electric voting machines were not counted.”
It claimed that the petition is not “based on verifiable facts, but mere assumptions” and “there are no legally permissible evidence or definitive requests for support for the accusation”.
The only bench judge, judge Arun R. Pednekar, rejected the petition and noted: “There is no prima facie material indicating that votes are handed over on behalf of the dead. The data has been asked for the petitioner and election commission, ie register in voting and more election rules. Voting, and with more voting, and more election rules, and more election rules, and more election rules, and more election rules, and more election rules, and more election rules, and more election rules, and more elections, and voting and voting.
Calling agents do not exist any affidavit that they have noticed that votes are handed over on behalf of the dead persons or that the election agent raised an objection to the cast of the votes on behalf of the dead.
In the absence of the material that can, the voting took place in the name of the dead persons Electoral Roll, SO Also, Has Placed Names of Voters at Multiple Places.
Only with the names of dead persons in the election role will this court assume that the votes are handed over in their names, the court said. “The placing agents in the booth are aware of the votes of the registered persons and the honorary statement of election agents present in the polling station stating that voices are against dead persons would at least indicate that the vote was against the name of the dead.”
In the election petition, requests must be accurate, specific and unambiguous. If the accusation contained in the election petition did not require the reasons as set out in section 100, and do not comply with the requirement of section 81 and 83 of the Act, the election proposal may be rejected under Regulation VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Proceedings.
The Court dismissed the petition: “The omission of the only material facts leading to the incomplete cause of the action or omission to contain a brief statement of the material facts on which the electoral petitioner relies on the cause of the action would mean rejecting the electoral petition under Regulation VII.
Published – June 17, 2025 22:01 is
