Bombay High Court: Dismisses Challenges to Maharashtra Election Ward Formation

Summary: The Bombay High Court threw out several requests that questioned how voting areas were set up for local elections in Maharashtra. The court stressed the importance of following constitutional rules and the need to hold elections on time.

Background of the Case

A number of requests were filed challenging the final announcement of how voting areas were set up in different districts of Maharashtra. These requests were related to the upcoming local elections. The people who filed the requests, led by Abhijeet Diliprao Deshmukh, were worried about which villages were included or left out of voting areas, claiming it was done unfairly and with bad intentions.

Legal Framework

The court, led by Judges Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade, pointed out that there is only a small chance for courts to get involved in election matters according to the Constitution. Articles like 243-O and 243-ZG stop courts from getting involved in how voting areas are drawn or in election processes.

"The courts cannot interfere with the drawing of voting areas unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rules."

Key Arguments

• Abhijeet Diliprao Deshmukh's Concerns: Abhijeet Diliprao Deshmukh argued that the way voting areas were set up was unfair and favored some political parties. He claimed that the rules in the government order dated 12.06.2025 were not followed.

• Government's Defense: The government, represented by Mr. A.B. Girase, argued that the complaints were considered, and the final decisions were based on keeping a balance in population and the closeness of areas.

Court's Analysis

• Objections and Hearings: The court noted that complaints were invited and listened to before making the announcements final. The process was found to be in line with the rules.

• Population and Geography: The court found that things like natural borders and how people are spread out were considered in setting up the voting areas.

"The zig-zag pattern and geographical considerations were applied in determining the boundaries."

Verdict

The court dismissed the requests, emphasizing the importance of holding elections on time as directed by the Supreme Court. The judges stressed that getting involved would mess up the election process.

"Conducting elections without delay is crucial for maintaining democratic governance."

The judgment highlights the court's job in balancing careful legal checks with the practical needs of running a democracy.