In a significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has intervened in the ongoing civic elections in Maharashtra. The court has issued a restraining order against the State Election Commission (SEC), preventing it from announcing the results of the first phase of municipal council and nagar panchayat polls as originally scheduled.
Court Halts Early Result Declaration
A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas delivered the verdict on Tuesday. The court explicitly restrained the SEC from declaring the results on December 3, which was just a day after polling was held for many local bodies on December 2. The judges expressed serious concern that such a swift declaration could compromise the integrity of the electoral process.
The core of the court's reasoning was the potential influence on the second phase of voting. "This may materially affect the results of polls on December 20. Then, it cannot be said elections on December 20 would be held in a fair and transparent manner," the bench observed. They ruled that counting votes and declaring results prematurely risked revealing the "public mood," which could unfairly sway voters in constituencies scheduled to go to the polls later.
Exit Poll Ban and Model Code Extension
In a sweeping move to ensure a level playing field, the High Court also imposed a comprehensive ban on the publication or broadcast of any exit polls. This prohibition is effective from Tuesday, November 30, and will remain in force until voting concludes on December 20.
Furthermore, the bench ordered that the model code of conduct, which governs the conduct of political parties and candidates, shall remain operational until the combined results of both phases are officially declared. This extension is intended to prevent any advantage being gained from the early phase's outcomes.
Petitions and Legal Arguments
The court's ruling came while hearing three separate petitions filed by individuals named Shakil Hamid Mansuri, Ashwini Burde, and Sachin Chute. These petitions challenged the SEC's decision to defer elections in certain civic bodies where appeals concerning the acceptance or rejection of nomination papers were still pending.
Representing the petitioners, senior counsel Firdos Mirza and counsel M Anil Kumar argued that the SEC's revised election schedule had destroyed the uniformity of the electoral process. They contended that the altered timeline risked giving an unfair advantage to some candidates. The state government's position was presented by Assistant Government Pleader Kalyani Marpakwar.
The SEC, represented by counsel A M Kukday, submitted a communication explaining its stance. The commission had postponed polls in disputed seats to allow a mandatory three-day period for withdrawal of nominations after the disposal of appeals. Consequently, only local bodies free of legal disputes proceeded with polling on Tuesday, December 2.
The SEC's communication indicated that while counting for bodies with pending appeals would be held on December 21 (along with those voting on December 20), results for the undisputed bodies that voted on December 2 were still slated for release on December 3. The court took this letter on record but firmly rejected the plan.
The bench has issued notices to the respondents, including the SEC and the state government, returnable on December 10. It has directed the SEC to file its reply before the next hearing date.
