Summary: The Bombay High Court, led by Judge Sandeep V. Marne, turned down Sudhakar Parshuram Ghare's request to challenge Mahendra Sadashiv Thorve's election win, due to not enough evidence and missing important facts.
Sudhakar Parshuram Ghare, also known as Sudhakarbhau Ghare, challenged the election results of the 189-Karjat Legislative Assembly Constituency, where Mahendra Sadashiv Thorve won. Ghare claimed that the election was unfair because of cheating, like giving out gifts and making threats, and wanted Thorve's win to be canceled.
Ghare accused Thorve of giving sarees to voters as a bribe. According to Ghare, sarees with stickers showing Thorve's picture and party symbol were given to women in return for their votes. However, the court found the claims lacking specific details, like who handed out the sarees and whether Thorve agreed to this.
"The election cannot be set aside by guessing," stated Judge Marne, highlighting the need for solid proof.
Ghare also said that Thorve threatened one of his senior party members, Manohar Patil, to make him switch sides. Even though there was video evidence shared around, the court found the claims inconsistent and noted there was no proof that these threats affected the election process.
Another issue was the presence of candidates with names similar to Ghare's, allegedly put forward to confuse voters. Ghare argued that this was a deliberate move by Thorve. However, the court noted there was no evidence showing that this confusion had a real impact on the election results.
Ghare further argued that Thorve did not properly reveal a pending criminal case. The court, however, saw this as a minor mistake and not serious enough to affect the fairness of the election.
There were claims of votes not being counted due to technical problems at a polling station. Yet, the court noted that the number of uncounted votes was too small to change the election result, and Ghare failed to show how this affected the outcome in a big way.
Judge Marne concluded that the petition didn't have the necessary important facts and details required by the election laws. The court dismissed Ghare's petition and his request to change the petition, stating that changes cannot add new details not mentioned before.
"The petitioner has failed to meet the basic requirements for taking the election petition to trial," Judge Marne declared, closing the legal case.
This decision highlights the need for clear and detailed claims in election disputes, ensuring that only well-supported cases go to trial.
