In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to restore the candidacies of aspirants for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections. The petition had challenged the rejection of their nomination forms by returning officers.
Grounds for Nomination Rejection
The PIL, filed by Bandra East resident Mozam Ali Mir, argued that candidates across Mumbai's 227 wards were unfairly disqualified. The primary reasons for rejection included affidavits or 'question answer sheets' not being in the proper format. Furthermore, candidates were rejected for failing to furnish No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from five key departments: police, water, tax, sewerage, and the estate department.
Advocates A A Siddiquie and Moin Chowdhari, representing the petitioner, contended before a bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad that the demand for these NOCs was "arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14" of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. The petition alleged that the rejections were made to "oblige the ruling party" by insisting on documents not mandated by the State Election Commission's (SEC) own guidelines.
Court's Reasoning and Dismissal
The High Court heard arguments from both sides. Civic commissioner and district election officer Bhushan Gagrani was represented by advocate Joel Carlos, who opposed the PIL on preliminary grounds of maintainability. Carlos argued that the petitioner had no personal knowledge of the returning officers' actions, was not a candidate himself, and had not filed a nomination form, thereby questioning his locus standi to raise a grievance.
The bench also examined the PIL and a compilation of SEC notifications submitted by Mir. In its decision, the court placed strong emphasis on a Supreme Court order which stated that the BMC election process ought to be completed by January 31 and its schedule should not be interfered with.
The High Court observed that no public interest reason was made out to justify judicial intervention in the electoral process. It held that granting the reliefs sought in the PIL would amount to granting relief against the statute. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.
Implications for the BMC Polls
This ruling clears a major legal hurdle and ensures that the schedule for the crucial BMC elections remains on track. The dismissal reinforces the authority of the State Election Commission and its appointed returning officers in the nomination scrutiny process. It also sets a precedent that courts will be reluctant to interfere in election timelines set by the apex court, barring exceptional circumstances.
The decision means that candidates whose nominations were rejected on the cited grounds will not be reinstated, and the election will proceed with the currently validated list of contestants. The focus now shifts entirely to the upcoming polling process for India's richest municipal corporation.
