Hope & Trust Some Module Would Be Developed To Avoid Bogus Voting: Bombay HC On Maharashtra MLA’s Petition Seeking Removal Of Duplications In Voter List
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Petition filed by Maharashtra MLA seeking the removal of duplications in voter lists.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking directions to the respondents to consider his representations where Petitioner requested the identification, verification, and removal of voters whose names were registered multiple times in the voter list. The Petitioner also sought a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to provide adequate infrastructure at the district level to assist the election machinery in identifying, verifying, and removing duplicate voter registrations.
The bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar observed, “We hope and trust that some module would be developed by the respondents so that bogus voting can be avoided.”
Senior Advocate Rajendra Deshmukh appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate VD Sapkal appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner who is a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly has filed the present Writ Petition ahead of the upcoming 2024 state elections. He contends that numerous names are duplicated in the voter list, which could lead to bogus voting. Despite submitting several representations to various authorities, including objections to the draft Electoral Roll, no action has been taken. He claimed that 43,000 names are duplicated and has requested that government servants be deputed to identify and remove these duplications. The lack of adequate infrastructure has been cited by the authorities as a reason for inaction. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition for judicial intervention.
The Court mentioned the decision in Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari (2014) and quoted, “…instructions contained in the handbook for Returning Officer are issued by the Election Commission in exercise of its statutory functions and are therefore, binding on the Returning Officers.”
The Court observed, “…when the statutory authority has insisted for adherence of procedure/instructions, then writ of mandamus cannot be issued by taking note of the practical difficulty of the objector.”
The Court further observed, “When a specific provision has been made for appeal, then before knocking the doors of the constitutional Court, the said remedy which is a statutory remedy should be exhausted.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
