Bombay High Court to hear PIL alleging mass rejection of BMC poll nominations

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Bombay High Court has challenged what it terms a “mass, malafide” rejection of nomination forms for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, alleging illegal demands for documents not prescribed by the State Election Commission (SEC).

The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad on Wednesday (January 7, 2025), who kept it for hearing on Friday (January 9, 2026). The petition is filed by Mozam Ali Mir, a 56-year-old businessman from Bandra Kurla Complex, through advocate A.A. Siddiquie. 

The PIL names the SEC, Maharashtra and the District Election Officer‑cum‑Mumbai Municipal Commissioner as respondents. It claims Returning Officers for Wards 1 to 227 rejected nominations on grounds neither statutory nor part of the SEC’s checklist. 

“The Returning Officers have arbitrarily rejected the nomination forms of numerous aspirants from the general public and Opposition parties on frivolous, hyper‑technical, and non‑statutory grounds such as ‘Affidavit not as per format’, ‘Question‑Answer sheet defect’, and ‘Non‑submission of NOCs (Water, Tax, Police)’. This mass 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, read with December 17, 2025, prescribes required documents; additional requisitions such as water, property tax, sewerage, building legality NOCs and police clearance certificates are not part of the official checklist. 

“Executive instructions or local circulars cannot override or supplement statutory orders of the Election Commission,” it asserts, adding that ROs “acted ultra vires” by issuing local 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 argue that SEC alone controls elections and municipal bodies cannot impose extra conditions. It also invokes the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia [the law does not compel the impossible], saying multiple clearances within a short nomination window are impractical. 

Annexed SEC data dated December 30, 2025, shows 11,391 forms distributed but only 2,516 received, a filing rate 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 argue the pattern is widespread. 

“This confirms that thousands of forms were arbitrarily rejected/refused on technical grounds to eliminate opposition candidates,” it states. 

A follow‑up representation dated January 4, 2025, sought transparency and a ward‑wise “Speaking Order” for every rejected form, stating whether invalidation was due to affidavit error or non‑submission of NOCs, and a count of rejections linked to NOC demands. 

The reliefs sought include a writ of mandamus directing the SEC to call for records of scrutiny across Wards 1–227; quash rejections based on affidavit format, question‑answer sheet or missing NOCs; revalidate and restore nomination papers; and revise the election programme to include restored candidates. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that affidavit format and question‑answer sheet issues are curable defects, and that no nomination shall be rejected for missing NOCs “not prescribed by the State Election Commission.” 

The petition asks that candidates whose nominations were invalidated be included in the list of validly nominated candidates for wards 1 to 227, with ad‑interim orders pending final disposal.