The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) found itself in an awkward spot on Monday after its Commissioner, Bhushan Gagrani, admitted to the Bombay High Court that he had “mistakenly” issued letters requisitioning staff from subordinate courts for civic election duties — an act the court said was well beyond his jurisdiction.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad expressed sharp disapproval of Gagrani’s actions. “From which provision do you draw powers? You cannot summon them. You don’t have the powers,” the bench remarked during the hearing. It firmly told the commissioner to “save yourself” and make alternate arrangements for election staffing.
HC Takes Suo Motu Action
The controversy stems from a suo motu action initiated by the Bombay High Court last week, where it stayed letters issued by the BMC commissioner directing court staff to report for civic polls duty. The High Court questioned the legality of the commissioner, who was acting as the District Election Officer, issuing such orders without any authority.
On December 22, 2025, the commissioner had written to staff of all subordinate courts in Mumbai asking them to report for election-related duties. However, on the same day, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Registrar (Inspection) informed the BMC that the High Court had administratively exempted court staff from poll duty, a policy that has been in place since 2008 as per the HC’s Administrative Judges’ Committee.
Despite being informed of this administrative position, Gagrani sent another letter on December 29 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, effectively rejecting the request for exemption and reiterating the demand for court staff participation in the civic polls.
Withdrawal After Court Order
After the High Court’s stay order last week, senior advocate Ravi Kadam, appearing for Gagrani, told the bench that the commissioner had recognised the error and withdrawn the controversial letters. “It was a mistake. The letters have been withdrawn,” Kadam submitted.
He further informed the court that fresh instructions had been issued clarifying that judicial staff cannot be requisitioned for election duty. However, a returning officer had subsequently issued a letter to the sheriff’s office seeking two staff members, which Kadam said was also “rectified.”
HC Emphasises Constitutional Superintendence
The High Court reiterated that under Article 235 of the Constitution, it exercises complete control and superintendence over the subordinate judiciary, including its administrative staff. The court observed that this constitutional safeguard was the basis for its 2008 administrative order exempting court personnel from being called up for poll duties.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing after three weeks, indicating it would take it up again once the civic elections conclude.
Quote of the Day:
“So now save yourself. You make arrangements from other sources. We will hear you after the elections,” the court told the commissioner.
Legal Background:
- Article 235 of the Constitution: Grants the High Court supervisory control over subordinate courts in its jurisdiction.
- 2008 HC Administrative Order: Exempts High Court and subordinate court staff from being called for election duties.
