4 months ago
1
In an urgent evening sitting connected December 30, 2026, the Bombay High Court restrained the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from requisitioning High Court and subordinate tribunal unit for predetermination work and directed the Municipal Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer to record a idiosyncratic affidavit explaining the authorization nether which specified directions were issued.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe convened astatine the Chief Justice’s residence astatine 8 p.m., “in presumption of the urgency successful the substance erstwhile the records were produced by the Registry earlier 1 of america (Chief Justice) successful the afternoon.” The Registry had informed the Court that the Advocate General was travelling, truthful Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan appeared for the State.
When the Court archetypal assembled, BMC counsel Komal Punjabi sought a little adjournment to get instructions; the Court reassembled astatine 8.45 p.m., erstwhile Punjabi sought to retreat the impugned communication, a petition the Bench declined.
The Court took suo motu cognisance after letters were sent straight to tribunal unit by the Municipal Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer. A December 22, 2025, communication directed subordinate tribunal unit to study connected December 30 betwixt 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. Despite the In‑Charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate informing the Collector and the BMC Commissioner of the High Court’s administrative determination to exempt tribunal staff, and contempt the Registrar emailing the Commissioner connected December 26 with the General Order dated March 31, 2009 attached, the Commissioner connected December 29 wrote to the Chief Judicial Magistrate declining exemption.
Recalling the Administrative Judges’ Committee determination of September 16, 2008, that tribunal unit are exempt from election duty, the Bench underscored the law model governing power implicit the judiciary personnel. “Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercises implicit power and superintendence implicit the subordinate Courts, including the staff,” the judges observed.
The Bench explained that Article 243K vests the State Election Commission with superintendence, direction and power implicit elections to Panchayats, portion Article 243ZA does the aforesaid for Municipalities. These provisions empower the SEC to behaviour section assemblage elections, but they bash not override Article 235, which gives the High Court exclusive power implicit judicial officers and staff.
On the statutory strategy for predetermination staffing, the Bench referred to the Representation of People Act, 1951. “On a glimpse astatine sub‑section (2) we find that the High Court oregon the subordinate Courts bash not find notation therein,” it said, aft citing Section 159 which obliges definite authorities to marque unit disposable for predetermination work. The bid besides pointed to the ECI’s connection dated June 7, 2023, “The contiguous signifier of obtaining the anterior support of the High Court earlier engaging judicial officers/staff, nether exceptional circumstances, for predetermination enactment to continue.”
Issuing directions, the Bench said, “We hereby nonstop the Municipal Commissioner, BMC‑cum‑District Election Officer not to instrumentality immoderate enactment pursuant to the ex‑parte communication dated 22nd December 2025 straight sent to the Court staff.” It added, “The Municipal Commissioner, BMC‑cum‑District Election Officer is restrained from issuing immoderate letter/communication to the Court unit of High Court oregon subordinate Courts requisitioning their services for predetermination duty.”
When BMC sought to retreat its December 29 letter, the Court refused, stating, “This petition is declined and the Municipal Commissioner‑cum‑District Election Officer is directed to record his ain idiosyncratic affidavit indicating the powers and jurisdiction nether which helium has issued directions to the subordinate unit of the District Judiciary to study for predetermination duty.” The affidavit, the Bench directed, “shall beryllium implicit successful each respect with due averments and supporting documents.” Affidavits are besides to beryllium filed by the State Election Commission, Election Commission of India, and State of Maharashtra “within the aforesaid time.”
The substance has been listed for January 5, 2026, “to beryllium taken up arsenic archetypal substance astatine 11:00 a.m.” A transcript of the bid is to beryllium communicated to counsels “through accustomed modes arsenic good arsenic email, WhatsApp etc.” The Bench besides noted that courts person consistently held that judicial and quasi-judicial unit cannot beryllium requisitioned for predetermination enactment without High Court approval.
