HC rejects pleas seeking probe into ‘unopposed’ victories in civic polls, conduct of elections with NOTA
Jadhav claimed, “withdrawal of rival candidates was not voluntary but was the result of systemic coercion, threats, or illegal allurements, violating the 'free and fair' mandate of Article 243-ZA of the Constitution."
The bench said that while PIL seeks direction to ECI to declare results of wards concerned after counting of votes, the ECI doesn't conduct said elections and PIL was "frivolous." It also noted the petitioner did not claim he was espousing the cause of municipal workers and rejected the plea.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected pleas seeking a probe into “mass withdrawals” of candidates for the municipal corporation elections in Maharashtra and conduct of elections by considering votes for the remaining candidate and the NOTA.
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad was hearing pleas by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leader Avinash Jadhav and one Sameer Shirish Gandhi from Pune, argued through advocate Aseem Sarode, seeking probe into the withdrawals.
Jadhav claimed, “withdrawal of rival candidates was not voluntary but was the result of systemic coercion, threats, or illegal allurements, violating the ‘free and fair’ mandate of Article 243-ZA of the Constitution.”
While the ruling Mahayuti claimed unopposed victories ahead of the polling scheduled to be held on January 15, the State Election Commission (SEC) had sought reports from local officials to ascertain no force or any other means were used to intimidate other candidates from contesting the polls.
Jadhav stated the SEC ordered inquiries into nearly 69 candidates declared elected unopposed so far across 29 municipal corporations owing to coercion, which allegedly led to largescale withdrawal of nomination papers ahead of the January 2 deadline.
The plea stated that a candidate is considered victorious only after a report to this effect is submitted, considered by the Commission, and a final decision is made.
The MNS leader also sought directions to the state government to “formulate legislation and amend the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, to include specific provision for minimum vote share for candidates elected unopposed.”
Story continues below this ad
“Without adverting to the facts stated in these writ petitions, we hold that the prayers made in these petitions cannot be granted. Therefore, no inquiry can be conducted at the instance of a person who does not say that he was prevented from filing his nomination or contesting the election. Even that situation can be looked into by the appropriate authority and not by the writ court. And such a person could have remedy elsewhere,” the bench held while refusing the plea.
Through another plea, one Ajay Jeya Murugan Nadar from a labour union in Thane sought direction to election authorities to proceed with election programme and declare results of such wards in Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) after recording and considering total number of votes cast in favour of remaining candidate and NOTA (None Of The Above) option.
The court observed that there is a statutory regime in place for conducting municipal elections along with guidelines of SEC and the “writ petition labelled as PIL” was in “abuse of process of law.”
The bench said that while PIL seeks direction to ECI to declare results of wards concerned after counting of votes, the ECI doesn’t conduct said elections and PIL was “frivolous.” It also noted the petitioner did not claim he was espousing the cause of municipal workers and rejected the plea.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
