Bombay High Court Raps Mumbai Civic Chief Over Deployment of Court Staff for Poll Duty

The Bombay High Court on Monday strongly reprimanded the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner for attempting to deploy court staff for election duty, warning that the move could amount to contempt of court.

“You made a mistake. You will be held accountable for contempt. What is the defence to save yourself?” the bench asked, directing the Commissioner to clarify his position.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad made the observation after senior advocate Ravi Kadam, appearing for the Commissioner, informed the court that despite the High Court initiating a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL), a returning officer had again attempted to requisition personnel from the Sheriff’s office, which functions directly under the court.

The issue had prompted the High Court to convene a late-night hearing at the Chief Justice’s residence during his vacation, following which the BMC withdrew its communication seeking court staff for poll-related work.

“It is worse than what it had been,” Kadam submitted. “Despite directions to withdraw the communication, one of the returning officers again sought requisition of staff from the Sheriff’s office. Once we became aware of it on Saturday, we immediately withdrew it.”

The Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval, stating, “You are writing letters to our staff. This is a very serious issue.”

The court clarified that while the judiciary may, in limited circumstances, allow its excess staff to be deployed for election-related duties, such deployment can only happen with prior authorization.

“Nothing helps you,” the Chief Justice remarked, rejecting the explanations offered.

Affidavits were filed by the BMC Commissioner, the State Election Commission, and the Election Commission of India (ECI). However, the bench remained unconvinced.

“You want to withdraw 600 people for four days. Every day is a working day. How is the judiciary going to function? Which provision of law gives you this authority? Explain the law to US. An affidavit will not help you,” the Chief Justice said.

Kadam argued that the root of the problem lay with the state government. He said the General Administration Department (GAD) had supplied a list of personnel eligible for requisition, which mistakenly included court staff.

“That is where the error occurred. Once the Chief Judicial Magistrate raised objections, we should have stopped,” Kadam conceded.

Taking note of the admission, the bench stated that the BMC Commissioner would have to personally explain the matter to avoid being held in contempt of court.