Subhash Ramrao Bhamre former Member of Parliament (MP) of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had lost the poll by a narrow margin of 3,831 votes and challenged the election held last May (results June 2024) through an election petition, as reported by The Hindu, The Times of India and The Hindustan Times. The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has, this month, dismissed an election petition filed by former Member of Parliament (MP), Subhash Ramrao Bhamre of the Bharatiya Janata Party, who challenged the election of Shobha Dinesh Bacchav from the Dhule Lok Sabha Constituency last year. The order passed on June 13 became available on Monday, June 16.
Mr. Bhamre was the candidate who had secured the second highest votes. The elected candidate secured 5,83,866 votes while the petitioner secured 5,80,035 votes. He lost by a narrow margin of 3,831 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 lakh votes polled by Bachchav.
| Dhule Lok Sabha Election Results 2024 | |||
| Candidate Name | Party Name | Votes | Position |
| Bachhav Shobha Dinesh | INC | 583866 | Won |
| Bhamre Subhash Ramrao | BJP | 580035 | Lost |
| Zahoor Ahamad Mohamad Yusuf | BSP | 4973 | Lost |
| Bharat Baburao Jadhav | IND | 19713 | Lost |
In the election petition, Mr. Bhamre claimed that after conducting inquiries, he came to know from the residents of Malegaon and party workers associated with him that votes were polled in the name of persons who were already dead and that these votes are polled in favour of Ms. Bacchav. He claimed that multiple votes under identical names were cast across different booths, also, burkha-clad women were allowed to vote despite their names not being on the electoral rolls, and all these votes were in favour of Ms. Bacchav.
Ms. Bacchav sought dismissal of the plea, arguing that the petitioner’s allegations were vague and unsupported. “The original election petition does not disclose the source of information from where the election agent of petitioner received information that votes from about six electric voting machines have not been counted.” Bacchav contended that the petition is “not based on verifiable facts but mere assumptions” and “there is no legally admissible evidence or definite pleading to back the charges.”
A Single Bench judge, Justice Arun R. Pednekar dismissed the petition and noted, “There is no prima facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons. The data was asked from the petitioner and the Election Commission i.e. register maintained under Form 17-A and 17-C of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 with CCTV footage so as to verify, whether votes are cast in the name of dead persons and multiple votes are cast in the name of same persons at different booths.”
There is no affidavit by polling agents that they have noticed votes being cast in the name of dead persons or that the polling agent had raised objection to the casting of the votes in the name of dead persons, the order said. Further, the order said that, in the absence of material that can prove that voting took place in the name of dead persons, the judge said, “Thus there is an element of speculation and inquiry by this court at the instance of the election petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the names of dead persons, whose names continues to be on the electoral roll, so also, has placed names of voters at multiple places. However, there is no evidence that voting has taken place in the name of dead persons or that voting has taken place at multiple places by the same voter.”
Further, by merely having names of dead persons on the electoral roll, this court will not presume that votes are cast in their names, the court said. “The polling agents in the booth are aware of the votes cast by persons and an affidavit of polling agents present in the polling station stating that votes are cast against the dead persons would at least indicate that voting has taken place against the name of dead persons.”
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 court observed.
Dismissing the petition, the court said, “Omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of election petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act.”
In 2019, the position was slightly different: Subhash Ramrao Bhamre of the BJP emerged victorious with 613,533 votes, while Congress’s Kunal Rohidas Patil secured 384,290 votes, followed by VBA’s Nabi Ahmad Ahmadulla with 39,449 votes. The voter turnout for this election stood at 55.42%. In the 2014 elections, Subhash Ramrao Bhamre also secured victory with 529,450 votes. Congress candidate Amarishbhai Rasiklal Patel was the runner-up with 398,727 votes, and BSP’s Yogesh Yashwant Ishi came in third with 9,897 votes. The voter turnout was slightly higher at 58.65%.
Related:
India’s election system is being weaponised, will the Opposition act?
Transparency demand Maharashtra: Prominent leaders among 104 seeking EVM–VVPAT inspection
Markadwadi, Pune, Sholapur, Akola, are protests against ECI mounting in Maharashtra?
Congress raises alarm over manipulated voter rolls in Maharashtra Assembly elections