In a significant development ahead of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) polls, eight aspiring candidates have approached the Bombay High Court with serious allegations against Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar. The petitioners have accused the senior political figure of exerting undue pressure on election officials to prevent the acceptance of their nomination papers for key wards in South Mumbai.
Allegations of Political Interference in Nomination Process
The legal plea, filed on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, claims that Rahul Narwekar personally interfered in the electoral process for wards falling under his Colaba assembly constituency. The candidates allege that the Speaker forced the Returning Officer (RO), Krushna Jadhav, and the local police to refuse their duly submitted nomination forms. This alleged intervention occurred on the critical deadline day of December 30, 2025.
According to the petition, the eight candidates—Baban Govind Mahadik, Niraj Harising Rathod, Vaishali Nhanu Gawade, Mahabub Imam Hussain Maddanawar, Parichay Kishor Bhoir, Manoj Dhonduram More, Rakhsana Ahmad Shafik Shaikh, and Margrate Da Costa—had completed all formalities well before the 5 PM cutoff. They had submitted necessary documents, security deposits, and obtained tokens from the RO's office. Despite this, their forms were not accepted.
Claims of Favoritism and Family Links
The petitioners have drawn a direct link between the alleged interference and the political interests of Speaker Narwekar's family. They point out that Narwekar's brother Makarand Narwekar, sister-in-law Harshita Narwekar, and cousin Gauravi Shivalkar are contesting the BMC elections from the BJP for wards 225, 226, and 227 respectively. These wards are part of the Speaker's own Colaba constituency.
The plea explicitly states that the interference was only with a view to benefit his candidates i.e. his brother, sister-in-law and his cousin from these wards. It further alleges that Narwekar's actions were aimed at helping his political party by eliminating potential competition from independent candidates in wards 224 to 227.
Legal Demands and Court's Initial Response
Through their advocates, Ashish S Gaikwad and Anirudh R Rote, the petitioners have made several key demands to the Bombay High Court:
- Direction to the State Election Commission (SEC) and polling authorities to accept their nomination forms.
- Suspension of Returning Officer Krushna Jadhav from his duties and initiation of penal action.
- An inquiry by the SEC based on their complaints, with a detailed report and submission of video recordings or CCTV footage from the RO's office on December 30.
The petition contains dramatic claims, alleging that Narwekar entered the RO premises multiple times on the day in question and later forced police to throw the waiting candidates out of the office premises as late as 8:30 PM on December 30, 2025. The candidates also claim their subsequent complaints to election authorities went unanswered.
However, when the matter was mentioned for an urgent hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad, the High Court declined an immediate hearing. The court stated it would hear the plea in due course, refusing to grant interim relief at this stage.
Speaker's Denial and Political Context
These allegations are not the first controversy surrounding the Speaker in recent times. Rahul Narwekar had earlier denied similar accusations from Opposition parties, dismissing them as baseless and politically motivated. The current petition, however, brings specific charges from individuals directly affected by the electoral process.
The BMC elections are a high-stakes political battle for control of India's richest municipal corporation. The Colaba area, being a high-profile constituency, often sees intense political maneuvering. This case puts a spotlight on the integrity of the nomination process, a fundamental pillar of free and fair elections.
The Bombay High Court's decision to hear the matter in due course, rather than immediately, suggests a judicial approach that will likely require detailed affidavits and evidence from both sides. The outcome could have significant implications not just for the eight candidates, but for the conduct of the entire BMC electoral process and the accountability of high-ranking public officials during elections.
