Bombay High Court directs Shinde faction MP Ravindra Waikar to respond to plea challenging his Lok Sabha win

A Single-Bench judge, Justice Sandeep Marne directed Ravindra Waikar to file an affidavit and issued notice to him to submit his response within four weeks

The Bombay High Court sought a response from Eknath Shinde faction Shiv Sena Member of Parliament [MP], Ravindra Waikar directing him to submit an affidavit responding to a petition filed by Shiv Sena [UBT] faction’s Amol Kirtikar. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 2, 2024) sought a response from Eknath Shinde faction Shiv Sena Member of Parliament [MP], Ravindra Waikar directing him to submit an affidavit responding to a petition filed by Shiv Sena [UBT] faction’s Amol Kirtikar. Mr. Kirtikar has challenged Mr. Waikar’s election as an MP from the Mumbai North West constituency in the recently held Lok Sabha polls in 2024. 

A Single-Bench judge, Justice Sandeep Marne directed Mr. Waikar to file an affidavit and issued notice to him to submit his response within four weeks. Further hearing in the matter is scheduled on October 3.  

Mr. Kirtikar had lost the Lok Sabha election against Mr. Waikar from the Mumbai North West Lok Sabha constituency by a margin of 48 votes. In his petition through advocate Amit A. Karande, Mr. Kirtikar has raised questions on the vote-counting process.

He demands the High Court to invalidate Mr. Waikar’s election, pronounce his win annulled due to significant irregularities during the vote counting process and instead declare him [Mr. Kirtikar] as the rightful winner from the Mumbai North West constituency. The petition filed in July also claims that 333 tendered votes were not counted and they were handled in an improper manner hence the HC must set aside Mr. Waikar’s election as an MP.  

Advocate Karande contended, “The election petitioner is aggrieved on account of the improper reception of void votes cast by 333 impersonators in place of genuine voters, along with breach of rules and orders, pertaining to the counting process, by the officials of Election Commission of India, which has materially affected the outcome of the election results.”  

The petitioner has also contended that there were several breaches of statutory rules and procedures by the Returning Officer (RO), including the denial of Mr. Kirtikar’s counting agents’ right to observe the process at the RO tables, the failure to provide Form 17-C (Part II) for 839 polling booths, and the hasty rejection of Mr. Kirtikar’s request for a recount. 

Advocate Karande has requested the court to summon video recordings of the entire counting procedure for review.