Bombay HC seeks poll panel response to plea against BMC delimitation notification

Though the petitioners submitted that rules stipulated such an exercise could be undertaken only six months before an election, the court did not stay the delimitation notification but sought to know the commission’s position, after observing that the decision could have been taken under the “special circumstances” of the pandemic.

A division bench of Justice A A Sayed and Justice Abhay Ahuja was hearing a public-interest petition, filed by Nitesh Rajhans Singh of the BJP and Sagar Kantilal Devre of the MNS, challenging the “legality and propriety” of the notification published in the official gazette on February 1. The petition claimed that the notification was arbitrary, arguing that the election commission had not delegated such powers to the corporation.

The corporation published the notification along with maps of the wards and sought public feedback till February 14. As per the notification, the number of wards has increased from 227 to 236, and ward boundaries have been changed. Out of the nine new wards, three wards each increased in the island city, the western suburb and the eastern suburb.

When the bench asked whether the petitioners had filed objections within the stipulated time, they submitted that when the legality of the notification itself was being challenged, the question of filing objections did not arise.

The petitioners argued that while the commission had held in 2005 that delimitation can be done only six months before a local body’s term expires, the February 1 notification was issued when the corporation’s term was set to end in March.

Their counsel further argued that corporation Commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal, who issued the notification, could not be considered an independent authority because he functioned under the state government, citing that as per the commission’s order on December 29, 2021, local body elections have to be conducted in a “fearless, free and transparent ambience”. The petitioners also submitted that an “independent person” such as a former high court judge or a bureaucrat from another state could have been vested with the powers.

However, the corporation submitted that the commission was an independent entity entitled to take a decision, adding that it had appointed Manoj Saunik to hear the objections and submit a report.

“There was a pandemic. There has to be some special circumstances and concessions. We are not inclined to give any ad-interim relief. In a pandemic, in special circumstances, lots of things have happened and decisions were taken,” the bench orally remarked and asked the commission to file its response at the next hearing, scheduled for February 25.