The Bombay High Court on Monday reprimanded Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani after he admitted to an "error" in issuing a letter that called upon subordinate court staff to perform civic election duties. The court has directed Gagrani, who is also functioning as the District Election Officer for the upcoming polls, to personally explain how this mistake occurred at the next hearing scheduled after three weeks.
Court Questions Legal Authority Behind Directive
A bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and comprising Justice Gautam A Ankhad expressed strong displeasure over the move. The judges questioned the legal authority and specific provisions under which Gagrani believed he could summon staff from the judiciary for election-related work. The court made it clear that the commissioner did not possess such powers.
The controversy stems from a letter dated December 22, which Gagrani sent directly to subordinate court staff, requisitioning their services without any prior communication with the High Court registry. This prompted the High Court to initiate a suo motu plea. In an urgent hearing convened at the Chief Justice's residence on the night of December 30, the court had restrained Gagrani from taking any action based on his letter and from issuing any further directives to High Court or subordinate court staff.
Withdrawal of Letters and Continued Scrutiny
During Monday's hearing, Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, representing Gagrani, informed the court that the directives were an "error" and had been formally withdrawn. He also stated that after the December 30 order, Gagrani had communicated to all concerned officers clarifying that court staff could not be requisitioned.
However, the bench was also informed that a returning officer (RO) had subsequently written to the sheriff's office seeking two staff members for election duty. Kadam clarified that this letter too had been withdrawn and the situation rectified. Despite these withdrawals, the bench remained unconvinced. The judges orally remarked, "So now save yourself. You make arrangements from other sources. We will hear (from) you after the elections."
Constitutional Authority and Past Precedents
The High Court had previously underscored its constitutional authority in its December 30 order. It stated that under Article 235 of the Constitution, it exercises "complete control and superintendence" over subordinate courts and their staff. The bench also referenced past court orders and a June 7, 2023 letter from the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The ECI's communication to various government departments and state election bodies had reiterated that the existing practice of obtaining prior approval from the High Court before engaging judicial officers or staff for election work, even under exceptional circumstances, must continue. The court had earlier declined a request to simply allow the withdrawal of the impugned communication, insisting instead on a personal explanation from the BMC commissioner along with supporting documents on the powers he claimed to have.
The matter will now be heard again after a period of three weeks, where Bhushan Gagrani must provide a satisfactory explanation to the Bombay High Court for the procedural lapse.
