Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed requests to change the final decision on election boundaries in Maharashtra, emphasizing that courts have little room to step in on election issues.
Several requests were filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the final decision on how voting areas were set up across different regions in Maharashtra. These changes were related to the upcoming local elections. The main issue was about whether certain villages should be included or left out of these voting areas.
The court, led by Judges Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade, pointed out that they have limited power under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They mentioned earlier decisions by the Supreme Court that limit courts from getting involved in election-related matters, especially when it comes to changing voting areas.
"It is not for the court to dictate the manner in which the same would be done," the court quoted from a previous Supreme Court judgment.
The Supreme Court had earlier instructed that local elections in Maharashtra should happen quickly. It stressed the importance of elections to maintain the democratic process, noting that any delays would go against constitutional requirements.
Arguments from Those Filing Requests: Many people, including Sambhaji Mohanrao Lomte, argued that their concerns were either ignored or wrongly turned down. They claimed the changes were random and politically driven.
Court's Response: The court carefully looked at the concerns raised and the steps taken by the authorities. It found that the right procedures were followed, including public meetings and thorough reviews of concerns.
"Proper hearing was granted, and specific reasons have been recorded," the judgment noted.
Taluka - Kalamnuri, District - Hingoli: Sambhaji Mohanrao Lomte claimed his concerns were unfairly dismissed. The court found that the authorities followed the rules and dismissed his request.
Taluka - Jamkhed, District - Ahilyanagar: People were unhappy about changes that seemed to help certain political parties. The court found no proof of unfairness or bad intentions.
Taluka - Mahur, District - Nanded: The court dismissed claims of unfair boundary changes, noting that population and area factors were fairly considered.
The court decided that those filing requests did not prove any unfairness or bad intentions in setting the boundaries. It stressed the importance of following the Supreme Court's order to hold elections without unnecessary delays.
"If we lightly interfere in such matters, it would result in derailing the entire election process," the judgment stated.
All requests were dismissed, and the rule was lifted, allowing the election process to move forward as planned.
