Bombay HC Upholds Congress MP Shobha Bacchav’s Win, Says Names Of Dead Voters Alone Don’t Prove Bogus Voting

Mumbai: Merely having names of dead persons on the voters’ list is not sufficient to presume bogus voting, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has held while upholding the election of Congress MP Shobha Bacchav from Dhule constituency to the 18th Lok Sabha.

Justice Arun Pednekar dismissed an election petition filed by BJP candidate Subhash Bhamre, who lost to Bacchav, in which he alleged large-scale bogus voting due to the presence of thousands of deceased individuals’ names—particularly in Malegaon—on the electoral rolls.

“There is no prima facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons,” the court said, adding that speculation alone could not form the basis for setting aside an election.

The judge noted that the petitioner had not produced crucial records such as the registers maintained under Form 17-A and 17-C of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, or any CCTV footage to support his claim. There were also no affidavits from polling agents stating that votes were actually cast in the names of deceased voters or that they raised objections at the time of polling.

“The Election Petitioner has placed on record the names of dead persons whose names continue on the electoral roll, as well as names of voters listed at multiple places. However, there is no evidence that voting has taken place in their names,” the court observed. “This court will not presume such voting has occurred simply because their names appear on the roll.”

The judge added that if polling agents had observed such irregularities, they should have submitted affidavits or raised objections on the spot. “Such affidavits would at least indicate that voting took place against the names of deceased persons,” he noted.

Another allegation, that Bacchav had failed to disclose a criminal case in her election affidavit, was also rejected. The court said that while it was alleged she had intentionally suppressed the information, there were no pleadings to show this had unduly influenced voters or amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Pednekar concluded that it lacked the specificity and material particulars required under the provisions of the Act. “The pleadings must be precise, specific, and unambiguous,” the court said.

news