6 months ago
1
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed successful the Bombay High Court has challenged what it presumption a “mass, malafide” rejection of information forms for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, alleging amerciable demands for documents not prescribed by the State Election Commission (SEC).
The substance was mentioned earlier Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad on Wednesday (January 7, 2025), who kept it for proceeding connected Friday (January 9, 2026). The petition is filed by Mozam Ali Mir, a 56-year-old businessman from Bandra Kurla Complex, done advocator A.A. Siddiquie.
The PIL names the SEC, Maharashtra and the District Election Officer‑cum‑Mumbai Municipal Commissioner arsenic respondents. It claims Returning Officers for Wards 1 to 227 rejected nominations connected grounds neither statutory nor portion of the SEC’s checklist.
“The Returning Officers person arbitrarily rejected the information forms of numerous aspirants from the general public and Opposition parties connected frivolous, hyper‑technical, and non‑statutory grounds specified arsenic ‘Affidavit not arsenic per format’, ‘Question‑Answer expanse defect’, and ‘Non‑submission of NOCs (Water, Tax, Police)’. This wide rejection is being done to oblige the Ruling Party,” the petition states.
The plea says the SEC’s Election Notification/Order dated December 12, 2025, work with December 17, 2025, prescribes required documents; additional requisitions specified arsenic water, spot tax, sewerage, gathering legality NOCs and constabulary clearance certificates are not portion of the authoritative checklist.
“Executive instructions oregon section circulars cannot override oregon supplement statutory orders of the Election Commission,” it asserts, adding that ROs “acted ultra vires” by issuing section requisition lists.
The PIL cites Articles 14, 19, 21, 226, 243‑K and 243‑ZA and Supreme Court rulings including Kishansing Tomar, Mohinder Singh Gill, Kanhiya Lal Omar, A.C. Jose and PUCL, to reason that SEC unsocial controls elections and municipal bodies cannot enforce other conditions. It besides invokes the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia [the instrumentality does not compel the impossible], saying aggregate clearances wrong a abbreviated information window are impractical.
Annexed SEC information dated December 30, 2025, shows 11,391 forms distributed but lone 2,516 received, a filing complaint of 22%. At the ward level, the plea cites Ward 23 (A+B+E): 739 forms distributed; 150 received, and K West (Ward 7): 765 distributed; 133 received, to reason the signifier is widespread.
“This confirms that thousands of forms were arbitrarily rejected/refused connected method grounds to destruct absorption candidates,” it states.
A follow‑up practice dated January 4, 2025, sought transparency and a ward‑wise “Speaking Order” for each rejected form, stating whether invalidation was owed to affidavit error oregon non‑submission of NOCs, and a number of rejections linked to NOC demands.
The reliefs sought see a writ of mandamus directing the SEC to telephone for records of scrutiny crossed Wards 1–227; quash rejections based on affidavit format, question‑answer sheet or missing NOCs; revalidate and reconstruct information papers; and revise the election programme to see restored candidates. The petitioner besides seeks a declaration that affidavit format and question‑answer expanse issues are curable defects, and that nary information shall beryllium rejected for missing NOCs “not prescribed by the State Election Commission.”
The petition asks that candidates whose nominations were invalidated beryllium included successful the database of validly nominated candidates for wards 1 to 227, with ad‑interim orders pending last disposal.
