REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Justice Chelameswar
Hon'ble Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment Date: 2017-02-13
Court Decision / Holding: Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Final Disposition: SLPs dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reena Suresh Alhat
Reshma Anil Bhosale

Respondents

State of Maharashtra
The Election Commission (through Secretary) and others

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Special Leave Petition concerns two Pune municipal elections under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Reena Suresh Alhat, whose nomination was rejected on 4 February 2017, challenged the rejection by a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed it on the twin grounds of constitutional bar and the existence of an alternate remedy. In the companion matter, Reshma Anil Bhosale challenged the allotment of an election symbol by the Election Commission, with an interim stay of the symbol order. Both matters were placed before the Supreme Court under Article 136. The petitioners urged this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, arguing that the grass-roots elections bear civic significance and that denial of electoral rights warrants immediate relief. The respondents countered that Article 136 relief is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly; the High Court remains a constitutional court with appellate jurisdiction; and the petitioners would have a forum to challenge infringements in an ordinary election petition and through the normal remedy channel. The Court endorsed caution, noting the enormous backlog in this Court and the limited nationwide significance of these local elections. It concluded that the petitions do not meet the rare criteria for interference and dismissed the SLPs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 136Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Discretionary nature of Article 136
High Court as constitutional court with appellate jurisdiction under Article 136

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the High Court’s orders deprived them of electoral rights and that Article 136 relief should be exercised to entertain the petitions given the significance of grass-root elections and the potential impact on the rights of the contesting candidates. They argued for upholding the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to ensure timely relief where warranted, and pointed to the possibility of relief through election petitions later if needed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that Article 136 relief is discretionary and should be used sparingly, particularly for local elections with no national repercussion. They argued that the High Court remains a constitutional court with appellate jurisdiction and that petitioners have alternative remedies in election petitions. They contended that the cases do not meet the criteria established in Ashok Kumar and similar precedents for interference.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.	AIR 1978 SC 851; 1978 (2) SCR 272	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate the discretionary nature of Article 136 but not applied as controlling in the present local-elections context.
Election Commission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.	(2008) 8 SCC 216	Distinguished	Court notes the parameters for interference in Ashok Kumar do not apply to the present case.
Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.	353 U.S. 500; 77 S. Ct. 443	Mentioned Only	Quoted as a cautionary principle about judicial restraint and docket management rather than as a binding rule.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2017] I S.C.R. 600 A ## REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6264 of20 I 7) B FEBRUARY 13, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, _Jf.f_ c D E 'F _Constitution of India_ - _Art. 136_ - _Special Leave Petition_ - _Entertainability of_ - _Writ petitions before High Court by the candidates contesting election to Municipal Corporation_ - _Challenging certain actions taken by the State Election CoJ11mission_ - _Orders of High Court passed against the petitioners_ - _Special Leave Petitions filed_ - _Held: The petitions are not entertainable on the grounds : (i) result of the election does not have repercussions 011 the affairs of nation; (ii) jurisdiction u/Art. 136 is discretionary; (iii) High Court is also a constitutional court (iv) the petitioner would_ - _still have a forum for adjudication of their respective rights Pendency of huge number of matters in Supreme Court coupled with relative insignificance of the present case, are also the factors which should weigh with Supreme Court before entertaining the Special Leave Petitions_ - _Petitions are dismissed_ - _Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949._ _Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors._ AIR 1978 SC 851 : 1978 (2) SCR 272; _Election CoJ11111ission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar & Ors._ (2008) 8 SCC 216; _Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.,_ 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77 S. Ct. 443, 459 - referred to. ## Case Law Reference G 1978 (2) SCR 272 referred to Para8 (2008) 8 sec 216 referred to Para9 353 U.S. 500, 521 referred to Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)6264of 20I7. H 600 601 REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER .. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1663 of2017. A ## WITH SLP (C) No. 5014 of2017. Dushyant Dave, Fali S. Nariman, Basanth R., Sr. Advs., Ashutosh Dubey, A. D. N. Rao, Azeem Samuel, Vipul D., Abhishek Chauhan, V. S. Rawat, Sushi! Pandey, Sandeep Deshmukh, Subhash Jadhav, Ankur Chawla, Arunabh Chaudhary, Ms. Kanika Singh, Kalyani Lal, R. K. Mohit Gupta, Sangram Singh, V. Tamar, Nar Hari Singh, San jay Kharde, Pratul Bhadale, Kaartik Ashok, Advs. for the appearing parties. B c The Order of the Court was delivered by **CHELAMESWAR, J.** I. Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. > 2. These two matters arise out of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Act No. 59 of 1949). Petitioners in these two SLPs are candidates at the ongoing Elections to the Municipal Corporation of Pune. 3. Aggrieved by certain action taken by the respondents, two writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Bombay, one by the petitioner in SLP (Civil) ... CC No. 3350 of 2017 and the other by respondent no.4 in SLP (Civil) No.5014 of2017. 4. Reena Suresh Alhat's nomination was rejected by an order dated 4.2.2017. She challenged the rejection of her nomination by a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by an order under challenge dated 7.2.2017 on the twin grounds of a constitutional bar and the existence of an alternative remedy. 5. In the case of Reshma Anil Bhosale, the dispute is regarding the allotment of a symbol. The petitioner claimed to be a candidate sponsored by the Bharatiya Janata Party. The said symbol was allotted to the petitioner by an order of the respondent dated 8.2.2017. One of the contesting candidates que-stioned the allotment of the election symbol ofBJP by filing a writ petition. _Rule nisi_ was issued and by an interim order of the High Court, the order of the Election Commission allotting the symbol in favour ofReshma Anil Bhosale was stayed. D E F G H 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R. A 6. Hence these two special leave petitions. 7. It was passionately urged by the learned senior counsel appearing in both the matters that this Court ought to examine the questions oflaw involved in the petitions because these elections at the grass r'oot level are of great importance in the civic administration of Pune. By the B impugned orde.rs, the High Court deprived the petitioners of their valuable electoral rights. Though the petitioners have an alternative remedy to challenge the election of returned candidates, such a remedy is time consuming and in the process a substantial (if not the entire) portion of the term of the office would expire and, therefore, this Court is bound to examine the cases on merits. c 8.,The remedy under Article 136 is a discretionary remedy though it does not mean that the discretion shou'Id be exercised whimsically. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of _Mo/tinder Singft Gill_ & _Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Del/ti_ & _Others,_ AIR 1978 SC 851, in support of the submission that in appropriate cases, this Court ought to interfere in certain specified circumstances in the election process notwithstanding the fact that the aggrieved candidate would ·have an opportunity to question the electi_on at a later point of time by filing an election petition. D E 9. On the other ))and, the caveator _(one of the contesting candidates_ - respondents in. SLP(C) No.5014 of 2017 relying upon a judgment of this Court in _Elet;tion Commission of India tftrougft Secretary v. As/wk Kumar_ & _Others,_ (2008) 8 SCC 216, argued that this Court clearly faid down the circumstances in which interference F would be justified and the case on hand does not fall within the parameters indicated therein. 10. We see no reason to ent_ertain the SLPs for the following reasons G - (i) The elections in question pertain to a local body under a local law of the State Legislature. The result of the election is most unlikely to have any effect on the affairs of this nation. We are even inclined to believe that the result of the election would not hav~ any repercussions beyond Pune City. H REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & 603 ANOTHER [CHELAMESWAR, J.] - (ii) The High Court is also a constitutional court, subject of· A course to the appellate jurisdiction conferred on this court bylaw. - (iii) The petitioners would still have a forum for adjudication of their respective rights and granting appropriate relief if they can successfully establish the infringement of their legal B rights. - (iv) The appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution under Article 136 is purely discretionaJ"Y. - (v) The pendency of huge number of matters in this Court c - coupled with the relative insignificance (from the point of view of the nation) of the injury to the petitioners herein are certainly factors which should weigh with this Court before entertaining these applications. 11. We are only reminded of a caution given by Justice Frankfurter in _Rog{!rs v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.,_ 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77 S. Ct. 443, 459 "The Court may or may not be ''doing justice" in the four insignificant cases it decides today; it certainly is doing injustice to the significant and important cases on the calendar and to its own role as the. supreme judicial body of the country." ... "Unless the Court vigorously enforces its own criteria for granting review of cases, it will inevitably · face an accumulation of arrears or will dispose of its essential business in too hurried and therefore too shallow a way." D E 12. We regret our inability to examine the issues involved in these · !Wo case.s. Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. F **Kalpana K. Tripathy** **SLPs dismissed.**