BMC to Bombay high court: Requisitioned court staff for election duty due to ‘inadvertent misreading’ of SEC order | Mumbai News
Mumbai: BMC commissioner Bhushan Gagrani on Monday informed the Bombay high court that requisitioning subordinate court staff for civic poll duty was the result of an “inadvertent misreading of the SEC (State Election Commission) order”. The HC, at a special vacation hearing, stayed the commissioner’s Dec 22 order to summon subordinate court staff for poll duty, and sought the commissioner’s and the SEC reply, and posted the matter to Jan 5. On Monday, Gagrani’s senior counsel, Ravi Kadam, said it was “an inadvertent misinterpretation” of a list the state prepared for poll duty. Gagrani’s affidavit said he ought to have been more prudent in segregating govt staff from court staff when requisitioning.
The BMC’s reply said this year, there are 10,231 election centres against 7,200 in 2017. Now, it has a staff of 87,000 compared to 1,05,269 in 2017. The staff requirement for the 2026 polls is 51,155, with five to one booth, and with additional flying squad and other staff, the total requirement is 79,989. The BMC has deployed 24,841 of its staff for poll duty.Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad questioned the civic chief’s action of requisitioning the court staff. “From which provision do you draw powers? You cannot summon them. You don’t have the powers,” the bench said orally, adding, “Is there any defence that you have apart from accepting your mistake?”The SEC, represented by advocate Sachin Shetye, submitted in its reply that the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, are not applicable for the conduct of local body elections, which are held under provisions of local Acts enacted by the state legislature. With no separate provision that governs requisitioning of staff for poll duty, SEC issued guidelines in 1995 and amended them in 2018.The HC, on Dec 30, referred to a 2008 decision of the administrative judges committee and a 2023 EC communication to exempt the court staff. On Monday, the HC adjourned the matter by 3 weeks and said in its final order it would clarify the law and lay down parameters, given the absence of any final judgment on court staff being requisitioned for poll duty.
