The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that a flaw in an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) does not justify invalidating an election unless it can be proven that the flaw significantly influenced the results. The court rejected a petition aimed at overturning a Gram Panchayat election outcome, where 1019 people had voted in a ward, but only 1018 votes were counted.

The bench, consisting of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi, declared that without presenting evidence and hearing from witnesses who can confirm that the election result was substantially impacted due to the Electronic Voting Machine defect, it is impossible to reach a definite conclusion. Merely asserting the existence of an EVM defect, which also needs to be proven, is insufficient to establish that the election outcome was compromised for this reason.

Meerabai and the opposing candidate participated in the Gram Panchayat Sheri elections, vying for the Sarpanch position. During the voting process, Meerabai claimed that an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) malfunctioned in one of the wards, prompting a replacement of the machine, and voting continued. Subsequently, it was brought to attention that 1019 people had cast their votes, but only 1018 votes were recorded. Meerabai raised objections with the Returning Officer at the time, but despite her concerns, the Contesting Candidate emerged as the winner. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Meerabai filed a Writ Petition in court, seeking to have the election results invalidated and requesting an investigation into the discrepancy in the vote count.

The Court based its decision on the precedent of the case Laxmibai Versus Collector, Nanded & Others [(2020) 12 SCC 186]. It emphasized that the appropriate recourse for anyone aggrieved by the acceptance or rejection of a candidate's nomination was to file an election petition. The Court underscored that the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act of 1959 (Act) outlines the mechanisms for addressing grievances. While the High Court possesses discretionary authority to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in certain cases, this authority is subject to the limitations imposed by Article 243-O of the Constitution.

The Court made it clear that while it is possible to claim that an election loss was caused by a malfunction in the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), establishing that such a defect had a significant impact on the outcome is a different matter. Such an argument would necessitate the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses who can substantiate that the election result was indeed materially affected by the EVM defect. The Court stressed that without these crucial elements, it would be impossible to reach a definitive conclusion in this regard. In essence, conclusive findings can only be made based on relevant evidence and witness testimony.

The Court determined that even if the case were to be considered as an exceptional circumstance under Article 226 of the Constitution, Meerabai's grounds for her petition were not covered by the provisions listed in Section 15(5) of the Act. 

As a result of the reasons stated, the Court decided to dismiss Meerabai's petition.

Case: Meerabai v Returning Officer to the Election/ Tahsildar, WRIT PETITION NO. 280/2023.