Bombay high court holds returning officers rejection of BJP candidate’s nomination invalid and orders inclusion in NMMC poll list

MUMBAI: In a first such order in the ongoing civic body polls in the State, Bombay High Court on Friday held as invalid an electoral Returning Officer’s order that rejected the nomination of BJP candidate Nikesh Bhojane and directed that his name be added to the accepted candidates’ list for ward 17A in Navi Mumbai. The relief to Bhojane came swiftly as the HC observed that the RO wrongly invoked a provision meant for the disqualification of sitting councillors against Bhojane.

Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad hence held as valid the otherwise valid nomination of Bhojane, 47, a lawyer, and directed the State Election Commission (SEC) and the electoral officer of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) to include him as a candidate for the forthcoming elections.




Kishor Patkar, a Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) candidate for Ward 17A, filed the complaint against Bhojane’s nomination.

Bhojane petitioned the court to challenge as illegal and arbitrary the rejection of his nomination form by a Returning Officer on December 31, 2025.

The SEC, represented by advocate Irfan Shaikh, submitted an affidavit saying it would not be possible to add Bhojane’s name since the last date for withdrawal of candidature was until 3 pm on January 2, 2026, and the list of contesting candidates was scheduled to be published on January 3, 2026. “At present, the preparation of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) by affixing the ballot papers for the respective seats is in progress; therefore, it is not possible to accept the nomination of the Petitioner and permit the Petitioner to contest the General Election to the seat of Councillor from Ward no 17A of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation,” a deputy election commissioner said in the affidavit, adding it would not carry out the EVM preparation for Ward 17A.

However, senior counsel Anil Sakhare for Shiv Sena candidate Patkar and counsel Tejesh Dande for the NMMC electoral officer noted that a stay of polls to 1 ward would mean the entire electorate would have to come again on another day scheduled later.

Sakhare, who cited the top court order to complete civic body polls across Maharashtra by January 31, submitted that Bhojane’s petition be dismissed. However, senior counsel Navroz Seervai argued that the rejection order was not just illegal and invalid; it was a slur on democratic principles, especially when a disqualification clause meant for existing councillors was used to prevent a candidate who never was a councillor.

The HC agreed with Seervai’s submissions and the contentions made in Bhojane’s petition, filed through advocate Nivit Srivastava.

HC granted urgent interim relief to Bhojane on Thursday and posted the matter to January 9 for final disposal. Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Ankhad, in their order on Thursday, said, “We are of the prima facie opinion that there is no absolute bar (under the Constitution) to entertain a writ petition in matters like the present one, which prima facie demonstrate illegal and arbitrary exercise of powers by the Election Returning Officer.”

The rejection order cited a civic notice Bhojane received on February 24, 2025, to “stop alleged unauthorised commercial use” of his house in Navi Mumbai, rendering him “disqualified” under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. The notice under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act did not specify the alleged unauthorised use, the petition said.

Section 10(1D) governs disqualification for being a councillor if involved in any illegal construction or obstructing authorities. The section was also wholly inapplicable, was Bhojane’s case.

The petition also had said the rejection of his nomination was on “flimsy grounds” and “is anathema to democracy”. It said, “A popular candidate who is likely to win an election is prevented from even contesting” on grounds bereft of any merit. “The election is being decided not by ballots but by illegal action under the guise of law,” the petition contended.