BMC polls: HC petition questions ‘mass rejection’ of nomination forms

The petition, filed by Mumbai-based businessman Mozam Ali Mir, claimed that the returning officers of all 227 electoral wards in the city have rejected several nominations on frivolous grounds

MUMBAI: Even as the Bombay High Court is hearing a spate of petitions challenging various aspects of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, from rejection of nomination papers to candidate eligibility, a fresh plea has been filed alleging the “mass rejection” of nomination forms across Mumbai’s wards on “hyper-technical” and non-statutory grounds to “favour the ruling party”.

Mumbai, India - Aug. 28, 2015 : Bombay High Court : ( Photo by Bhushan Koyande )

The petition, filed by Mumbai-based businessman Mozam Ali Mir, claimed that the returning officers of all 227 electoral wards in the city have rejected several nominations on frivolous grounds, such as the affidavits not being in the prescribed format, defective question-answer sheets, and non-submission of no-objection certificates (NOCs) from the water, tax and police departments. The petition also blamed the district election officer and the municipal commissioner for these “high-handed, arbitrary, and unconstitutional actions”.

Mir alleged that the returning officers had acted “ultra vires” (beyond their powers) by issuing a so-called Requisition List, demanding documents not prescribed in the notification issued by the State Election Commission (SEC) last month. “It is a settled principle of law that executive instructions or local circulars cannot override or supplement statutory orders of the election commission”, said the petition, filed on January 5.

To underline the scale of rejection, Mir cited ward-wise data. He claimed that only 150 of the 739 nomination forms distributed in ward No. 23 were accepted, due to “the illegal insistence on non-statutory NOCs and hyper-technical rejections”. Similarly, in ward No. 18, out of 507 distributed forms, only 118 were accepted, his petition said.

This, according to Mir, has deprived a large number of eligible citizens of their statutory right to participate in the upcoming Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections.

“This action is a direct attempt by the municipal administration to supersede the constitutional powers of the State Election Commission,” the petition said. The BMC, it said, is merely an implementing agency and has no jurisdiction to supersede, alter, or add conditions to the election notification issued by the SEC.

The petition, filed through advocate AA Siddiqui, also stated that the departments from which NOCs were sought, like water, assessment tax and building proposals, function under the administrative control of the BMC. As a result, it said, a high probability of “political sabotage” arises, where NOCs are deliberately delayed or denied to opposition candidates, thereby disqualifying them. “This creates an uneven playing field and denies equality before law,” Mir said.

Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the petition said a candidate is required to disclose their criminal antecedents and liabilities through sworn affidavits, and that returning officers cannot insist on clearance certificates from third-party agencies, such as the police, as a precondition for accepting nominations.

Furthermore, it said, the window for filing nominations is extremely short, often lasting less than seven days. Requiring a common citizen to obtain clearances from five different bureaucratic departments within this limited period is practically impossible, it added.

Citing data published by election authorities on December 30, 2025, Mir claimed that nearly 70%-80% of aspirants who collected nomination forms were unable to file them. This, he said, establishes that the demand for additional NOCs acted as an insurmountable barrier for ordinary citizens. “This serves as incontrovertible proof of the chilling effect caused by the illegal demands of the [municipal] corporation and the SEC,” the petition said.

The petition alleged that this pattern of mass rejection was “orchestrated solely to oblige the ruling party by eliminating general public and local political parties”. It sought the revalidation of the allegedly illegally rejected nomination papers and a revision of the election programme to allow wrongfully excluded candidates to contest.