Maharashtra result: Will EC submit arguments?
Voters’ electoral behavior has its own internal logic: the general belief is that voters don’t flip-flop irrationally unless they have a reason to do so. The question is: If the Congress party won a good number of seats in the May-June 2024 parliamentary elections, why did it perform dismally in some state assemblies where it had performed well earlier?
Paradoxically, election results in the past few months have repeatedly challenged such predictable voting behavior. The Congress and other opposition parties are claiming “foul play” and alleging manipulation of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM). Is there any merit to these allegations?
For instance, the Congress fared well in the 2024 parliamentary elections and was expected to carry its vastly improved electoral form into the assembly elections later in the year. This belief was based not only on assumptions about voter behavior but also on the fact that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led central government had done little to address unemployment or inflation—two critical issues that angered voters and influenced their electoral choices.
Despite these factors, the Congress was defeated – not only in Haryana four months after the parliamentary elections, but also in the crucial Maharashtra elections five months after the June elections, where it was leading the coalition. In Haryana, the Congress lost a direct fight to the BJP. In Maharashtra, it was part of the Bharat Alliance, which performed well in the 2024 general elections. Again it suffered a significant defeat.
Maharashtra Results: Will Congress-led MVA challenge results?
Defeated candidates of Congress in Haryana have filed election petitions. Some of these candidates tried to stop the swearing-in of the new government, claiming that there had been electoral irregularities or tampering with EVMs in 20 constituencies. However, the court not only rejected their application but also threatened to fine the petitioner.
Many of these candidates were defeated by narrow margins and hoped that their election petitions would result in their favour. However, the harsh reality is that election petitions are rarely resolved expeditiously enough to provide timely justice to litigants. Frustratingly for these candidates, cases in the High Court often go far beyond the stipulated six-month period, perpetuating a painful status quo.
In an attempt to disrupt the election process, the court has been accused of casting doubt on the fairness of the election. Critics argue that if the court allows a closer scientific scrutiny of EVMs and gives voters an option to choose between ballot papers and EVMs, all such doubts can be removed. Instead, critics claim, the courts have sided with the Election Commission of India (ECI) by preferring a “frustrating” claim that the use of ballot papers would delay election results. Critics further point out that the ECI has already conducted staggered parliamentary elections for more than a month, showing there is no rush to complete the process or install governments.
A similar story emerged after the Maharashtra results were declared. The Congress-led alliance, which included factions of the NCP and the Shiv Sena, faced an unexpected defeat when every pollster predicted a close fight or a win for the MVA against the BJP-led grand coalition. The Congress-led alliance has alleged that the Mahayuti has benefited from the Supreme Court’s ruling that failed to disqualify MPs who defected from one party to another. The courts, they argued, legitimized political brokers, thereby aiding disaffected factions.
If the BJP-led coalition emerges victorious in Maharashtra, the credit, according to the opposition, lies in the favorable ecosystem created around it.
There was no particular reason for the absence of elections in Maharashtra along with elections in Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Election Commission (EC) in its infinite wisdom decided to delay the Maharashtra elections by a month. The delay gave the BJP-led government an opportunity to promote schemes like the Ladli Bahna Yojana — a cash transfer program that provides ₹1,500 directly into the accounts of poor women — before the elections. The commission found no problems with the scheme and allowed it to be extended till October 15.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the BJP-led alliance, which was on the defensive after the Congress’s strong performance in the June parliamentary elections, has begun to show renewed aggression. Mahayuti supporters argue that the coalition benefited significantly from the Ladli Bahna scheme, just as the BJP leveraged cash transfers to secure a last-minute victory in Madhya Pradesh. In MP, pre-poll surveys showed the BJP trailing the Congress by 2-3 percentage points, but the BJP eventually emerged victorious, leaving the Congress to blame EVM tampering as the real reason for its defeat.
The Congress-led alliance is not convinced of its defeat after the declaration of Maharashtra results. There are suggestions that it may take advantage of the Supreme Court’s recent order, which allows re-counting of the VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) if the complainant pays ₹ 47,500 to the EC. Although similar requests were made in Haryana, the commission refused to entertain them. If the Congress-led coalition succeeds in pushing for a VVPAT recount in Maharashtra, it could resolve several contentious issues.
If the allegations of the losing side are proved to be false, it confirms the position of the Commission. However, if the Congress-led alliance is able to show reconciliation between the counting of votes and the counting of votes, it will deal a big blow to the credibility of the Election Commission and the elections conducted by it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly dismissed public interest litigations (PILs) that advocated a return to ballot voting but upheld its order allowing VVPAT recounts in case of mismatches. As a result of Maharashtra, there are many such examples.
The credibility of Indian democracy depends on whether the Court can compel the Commission to comply with this order. If the courts and the Election Commission do not bow to the pressure, the Congress may increase its displeasure by launching a nationwide protest against the use of EVMs in elections.