Mumbai, Jan 8: A fresh petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court alleging “mass rejection” of nomination forms across Mumbai’s wards ahead of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, purportedly on hyper-technical and non-statutory grounds to favour the ruling party.
The petition, filed by Mumbai-based businessman Mozam Ali Mir, claimed that returning officers in all 227 electoral wards rejected several nomination papers on frivolous grounds, including affidavits not being in the prescribed format, defective question-and-answer sheets, and non-submission of no-objection certificates (NOCs) from the water, assessment tax and police departments.
The plea also blamed the district election officer and the municipal commissioner for what it described as “high-handed, arbitrary and unconstitutional actions”.
Mir alleged that the returning officers acted ultra vires by issuing a 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,” the petition stated.
Highlighting the scale of rejection, the petitioner cited ward-wise data. In ward No. 23, only 150 out of 739 nomination forms distributed were accepted, while in ward No. 18, just 118 out of 507 forms were accepted, allegedly due to illegal insistence on non-statutory NOCs and technical objections.
According to the petition, these actions have deprived a large number of eligible citizens of their statutory right to contest the upcoming civic elections. It said the BMC is merely an implementing agency and has no authority to alter or add conditions to the election notification issued by the SEC.
Filed through advocate A A Siddiqui, the petition further pointed out that the departments from which NOCs were sought function under the administrative control of the BMC, raising the possibility of “political sabotage” through deliberate delays or denial of clearances to opposition candidates.
“This creates an uneven playing field and denies equality before law,” Mir said. Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the petition argued that candidates are required only to disclose criminal antecedents and liabilities through sworn affidavits, and that returning officers cannot insist on clearance certificates from third-party agencies, including the police.
It also noted that the nomination window is extremely short, often less than seven days, making it practically impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain clearances from multiple departments within the stipulated time.
Citing data published by election authorities on December 30, 2025, the petitioner claimed that nearly 70–80 per cent of aspirants who collected nomination forms were unable to file them, demonstrating the “chilling effect” of the additional requirements.
Alleging that the mass rejection was orchestrated to benefit the ruling party by eliminating independent and local political candidates, the petition sought revalidation of the rejected nomination papers and a revision of the election programme to allow affected candidates to contest.
