Asst charity commissioner’s directive on Asiatic Society voter list quashed

Two new members of the society challenged the ACC’s order, contending that they were unlawfully being denied the right to vote in the upcoming election on November 8

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside an order issued by the assistant charity commissioner (ACC) directing the Asiatic Society of Mumbai to finalise October 3 as the cut-off date for finalising the list of eligible voters for its Managing Committee elections.

Elections to the Managing Committee of the society are scheduled to take place on November 8. (HT PHOTO)

The court was hearing a petition filed by Asiatic Society members Ramesh Bhutekar and Vishwas Utagi, who acquired membership on October 15. They challenged the ACC’s order, contending that they were unlawfully being denied the right to vote in the upcoming election on November 8.

During the hearing on Thursday, a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sandesh Patil ruled that the ACC had no authority to interfere in matters concerning the election process of the society, quashing the order.

According to the petition, the Society’s Scrutiny Committee, in its meeting on October 3, had approved membership applications up to that date and decided that applications would be accepted until October 15, with October 30 as the last date for payment of the subscription fee.

The petitioners pointed out that the committee continued processing applications until October 24, recording 1,681 new memberships during that period. Despite this, the ACC, in its October 30 order, directed the election officer to consider only those memberships finalised as of October 3. They further stated that the election officer had not yet published the final list of candidates or voters, thereby preventing members from raising objections, which is a crucial part of any election process.

Citing the society’s bye laws that require residents and life members to cast their votes in the Managing Committee elections, the petitioners argued that the ACC’s order was “perverse, bad, and illegal,” as it infringed upon their right to vote despite valid membership.

The high court, agreeing with the petitioners, held that the ACC’s directions were beyond his jurisdiction and quashed the order, paving the way for a fair and transparent election process.