Tue Jun 17 16:31:27 UTC 2025: **Summary:**

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed an election petition filed by former MP Subhash Ramrao Bhamre (BJP) challenging the election of Shobha Dinesh Bacchav (unspecified party) from the Dhule Lok Sabha Constituency. Bhamre alleged fraudulent voting practices, including votes cast in the names of deceased individuals and multiple votes cast by the same people, favoring Bacchav. The court rejected these claims, citing a lack of verifiable evidence and reliance on vague assumptions. The court emphasized the need for precise and specific pleadings in election petitions and stated that the absence of material facts and evidence to support the allegations warranted the dismissal of the petition.

**News Article:**

**Bombay High Court Dismisses BJP Leader’s Election Petition**

*MUMBAI, June 17, 2025* – The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court today dismissed an election petition filed by Subhash Ramrao Bhamre, a former member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), challenging the victory of Shobha Dinesh Bacchav in last year’s Dhule Lok Sabha Constituency election.

Bhamre, who narrowly lost the election by 3,831 votes, alleged widespread fraudulent voting practices. He claimed that inquiries revealed votes were cast in the names of deceased individuals and that multiple votes were cast under identical names, all purportedly favoring Ms. Bacchav. Bhamre also alleged that burkha-clad women were allowed to vote without being on the electoral rolls.

Justice Arun R. Pednekar, presiding over the case, dismissed Bhamre’s petition, stating that the allegations lacked concrete evidence and were based on mere assumptions. The court noted the absence of affidavits from polling agents confirming the alleged irregularities. The judge emphasized that the election petition must be precise, specific, and unambiguous, and that the failure to present verifiable facts and material evidence justified the petition’s dismissal.

“There is no prima facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons,” Justice Pednekar stated in his order. “The petitioner has placed on record the names of dead persons, whose names continues to be on the electoral roll, so also, has placed names of voters at multiple places. However, there is no evidence that voting has taken place in the name of dead persons or that voting has taken place at multiple places by the same voter.”

Ms. Bacchav had sought the dismissal of the petition, arguing that Bhamre’s claims were vague and unsupported by verifiable evidence. The court’s decision upholds her election victory. The decision underscores the importance of providing substantial and admissible evidence in challenging election results through legal petitions.

Read More