Names Of Dead Persons Remaining On Voters List Doesn't Mean They Were Misused To Influence Election Result: Bombay High Court

Merely because names of dead persons continue to be on the voters list it cannot be presumed that votes have been cast in the name of these dead persons, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently while upholding the election of Congress MP Shobha Bacchav from Dhule constituency to the 18th Lok Sabha elections.

Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar dismissed the election petition filed by one Subhash Bhamre, a candidate of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), who lost to Bacchav.

The judge noted that one of the primary grounds for challenging the petition was that thousands of bogus votes were cast in Bacchav's favour as names of thousands of dead persons particularly in the Malegaon region of the constituency, continued to feature in the voters' list. 

"There is no prima-facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons. The data is asked from the Election Petitioner from 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," the bench noted. 

The judge further noted that there was no affidavit on record, by polling agents stating 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. It is also not stated that the polling agents have noticed casting of votes in the name of dead persons, however, have not objected to the casting of the votes in the name of dead persons as they were unaware of the demise of the voter at the relevant time, the judge noted. 

The judge also took into account the fact that there was no material to show that voting took place in the name of dead person.

"Thus there is an element of speculation and inquiry by this court at the instance of the Election petitioner. The Election 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. However, by merely having names of dead persons on the electoral roll this court will not presume that votes are cast in their names," the judge held in the order passed on June 13. 

The polling agents in the booth, the judge said 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.

"This (names of dead persons) data is called for from the Election Commission by the Election Petitioner and only after the data that may be made available by the Election Commission further case of the Petitioner will either be substantiated or refuted. Thus, this court finds that the ground raised in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act is not substantiated by material particulars. This court would not undertake an inquiry to ascertain, whether voting has been cast in the name of dead persons or that there is multiple voting in the name of same persons without supporting pleadings and material in the Election Petition," the judge opined.

Among other grounds, the petitioner also contended that the Congress candidate Bacchav deliberately did not mention about her criminal antecedents in the affidavit along with the mandatory Form 25.

Rejecting the ground, the judge said, "It is stated that Bacchav is aware of the crime registered against her but has deliberately and intentionally suppressed it in her affidavit. However, there is no pleading in the Election Petition that non mention of the criminal case has resulted in undue influence on the voters and in turn constituted corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of The People Act," the judge held. 

With these observations, the bench dismissed the election petition. 

Appearance:

Advocates VD Salunke and AV Deshmukh appeared for Election Petitioner.

Advocates Mukul Kulkarni and Umesh Mitkari represented the Winning Candidate.

Case Title: Dr Subhash Ramrao Bhamre vs Election Commission of India (Election Petition 2 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment