Amol Kirtikar challenges Ravindra Waikar’s Lok Sabha election win in HC

Kirtikar, who lost the seat by a narrow margin of 48 votes, alleged “multiple breaches/lapses” in the counting process. A candidate can file an election petition to challenge the validity of the poll results. Election petitions are filed in the high court of the state in which the election was held

MUMBAI: Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Amol Kirtikar on Tuesday filed an election petition before the Bombay high court, questioning the victory of Ravindra Waikar from the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) in the Mumbai North West Lok Sabha constituency. Kirtikar, who lost the seat by a narrow margin of 48 votes, alleged “multiple breaches/lapses” in the counting process.

Mumbai, India - May 18, 2024: Amol Kirtikar, the Shiv Sena (UBT) candidate from Mumbai North West Lok Sabha constituency pose for the photos at his office at Andheri in Mumbai, India, on Saturday, May 18, 2024. (Photo by Satish Bate/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times)

According to the Lok Sabha poll results declared on June 4, Waikar secured 452,644 votes (451,094 EVM votes and 1,550 postal ballots), while Kirtikar got 452,596 votes (451,095 EVM and 1,500 postal ballots).

A candidate can file an election petition to challenge the validity of the poll results. Election petitions are filed in the high court of the state in which the election was held.

In his election petition filed through advocate Amit Karande, Kirtikar claimed that Waikar’s election was void because the results were materially affected by “improper reception of void votes cast by 333 impersonators in place of genuine voters”. He alleged the Election Commission of India’s (ECI’s) returning officer for the constituency had breached the statutory rules governing the counting process. The petition also claimed there were glaring and serious lapses by election officials deputed to count the votes, which materially affected the results.

Kirtikar’s election petition stated that nobody from his side was present to note the numbers from the original Form 17-C (Part II), from which the data from each table was being compiled and tabulated in the ECI’s ENCORE system after each round of counting. As a result, he or his counting agents could not tally their numbers with the final results declared.

The petition also alleged that the election officers did not provide Form 17-C (Part II) for 839 polling booths from the Jogeshwari, Versova and Goregaon assembly segments to Kirtikar or his counting agents, which is mandatory. This denied Kirtikar “an opportunity to cross verify the final results,” the petition said.

Kirtikar claimed that as per the numbers recorded by his agents at different counting tables, he had secured 650 more votes than Waikar at the end of 26 rounds of counting. However, the returning officer announced that Kirtikar got only one vote more than Waikar at the end of 26 rounds “based on the entries made in Form 20,” the petition added.

Immediately after noticing the discrepancy in the votes being recorded, Kirtikar’s election agent sought the recounting of votes, but the returning officer turned down the request, the petition claimed. Although he had filed a formal application to recount the EVM votes, the application was recorded to have been filed around 12 minutes after the results were declared at 7:54 pm, said the petition.

Kirtikar argued that this was “a total mockery of the statutory rules,” which state that a reasonable opportunity should be given once the election agent demands recounting of votes. Instead, his application for recounting was hastily rejected.

“The multiple breaches/lapses… clearly go on to show that a systematic effort has been made to defeat the Election Petitioner, who despite all odds, has secured 1 vote more than the Returned Candidate at the end of the counting of EVM votes,” the petition stated.