Supreme Court to Hear Plea Alleging Mass Rejection of Nominations in BMC Elections
Background of the Dispute
A significant constitutional challenge relating to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections has reached the Supreme Court of India, days before polling scheduled for January 15.
A Mumbai-based businessman, Mozam Ali Mir, has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of his Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which alleged mass, arbitrary, and unconstitutional rejection of nomination forms across Mumbai’s 227 electoral wards.
The Supreme Court has listed the matter for urgent hearing on Tuesday, barely two days before the elections, underlining the gravity of the allegations and the potential impact on electoral democracy.
The Petitioner and Nature of the Challenge
Mir’s PIL, originally filed before the Bombay High Court on January 5, raised concerns about the sanctity of free and fair municipal elections, claiming that returning officers systematically rejected nominations on hyper-technical and non-statutory grounds, allegedly to favour the ruling political dispensation.
After the High Court dismissed the PIL on January 9, citing its inability to interfere in an ongoing statutory election process, Mir approached the Supreme Court on January 10, arguing that the High Court failed to appreciate the public interest dimension of the case.
Grounds of Rejection Highlighted in the Petition
The petition sets out multiple examples of what it terms frivolous and illegal grounds for rejection, including:
Affidavits not being in the “prescribed format”
Minor defects in question-answer sheets
Non-submission of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from:
Water department
Property tax department
Police department
According to the petitioner, none of these requirements were mandated by the election notification issued by the State Election Commission (SEC).
Alleged Illegal Exercise of Power by Election Authorities
The PIL accuses:
Returning Officers
District Election Officer
Municipal Commissioner
of acting without jurisdiction by issuing a so-called “requisition list”, compelling candidates to submit documents not authorised by law or SEC notification.
The petition alleges these actions were:
Arbitrary
High-handed
Violative of constitutional guarantees
Statistical Evidence of “Mass Rejection”
To demonstrate the scale of the alleged exclusion, Mir placed ward-wise data before the High Court:
Ward No. 23
Nomination forms distributed: 739
Accepted: 150
Ward No. 18
Nomination forms distributed: 507
Accepted: 118
Overall data cited by the petitioner shows:
11,391 nomination forms distributed
Only 2,516 accepted
Nearly 70–80% aspirants allegedly excluded
The petition argues this effectively disenfranchised thousands of eligible candidates, undermining democratic participation at the grassroots level.
Bombay High Court’s Reasoning
The Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL, holding that:
Courts must exercise restraint during an ongoing election process
Judicial interference could obstruct the statutory election framework
The High Court relied on the principle that election disputes should ordinarily be addressed after the completion of elections, through election petitions.
Supreme Court Challenge: Core Legal Issues
In the SLP filed through advocate Rashid Azam, Mir contends that the High Court:
Failed to distinguish between electoral process challenges and executive illegality
Ignored the urgency and irreversible prejudice caused by mass rejection
Did not consider that the PIL did not challenge election scheduling or delimitation
Instead, the challenge targets collateral executive actions that allegedly corrupted the nomination process.
Reliefs Sought Before the Supreme Court
The petitioner has requested the Supreme Court to:
Set aside the Bombay High Court’s dismissal
Direct inclusion of rejected candidates in the final list
Order the State Election Commission to revise the election programme
Protect the integrity of the electoral process and ensure maximum participation
The SLP argues that allowing elections to proceed without corrective intervention would cause irreparable harm to democratic representation.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Arbitrary rejection of nominations without statutory basis violates the principle of equality.
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c)
The right to political expression and association includes the right to contest elections, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity
Democratic participation is an essential facet of constitutional dignity.
Article 243U & Part IX-A
Mandates democratic governance at the municipal level through free and fair elections.
Statutory Framework Involved
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
State Election Commission Rules and Notifications
Representation of the People Act principles (by analogy)
Returning officers are bound strictly by statutory prescriptions and cannot impose additional conditions.
Judicial Precedents Relevant to the Case
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
Held that free and fair elections are a basic feature of democracy.
Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (2004)
Recognised that courts can intervene during elections in cases of grave illegality without halting the electoral process.
Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000)
Clarified that judicial review is permissible to correct executive wrongs that distort elections.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
Reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in preserving democratic integrity.
Why the Case Matters
This case raises fundamental questions about:
Limits of administrative discretion in elections
Judicial restraint versus democratic correction
Whether procedural technicalities can override popular participation
The Supreme Court’s decision may set a nationwide precedent on how courts balance election timelines with constitutional fairness.
Conclusion
With polling imminent, the Supreme Court’s intervention will be closely watched. At stake is not merely the fate of rejected candidates, but the credibility of urban local body elections in India’s financial capital.
The case underscores a vital democratic principle:
Elections must not only be conducted on time — they must be conducted fairly.

Comments
Post a Comment