The Bombay High Court on Tuesday has made a significant decision affecting the staff of the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner’s office, who were initially requisitioned for election duty by the Election Commission of India (ECI). This move came after the ECI informed the court that it had withdrawn the notices issued for requisitioning the staff, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding election duties and administrative responsibilities.
Also read- Delhi High Court Deliberates On Bail For 2020 Delhi Riot Accused (lawchakra.in)
The legal battle reached the Bombay High Court following two petitions, one filed by the Charity Commissioner and another by the Advocates Association of Charity Commissioner. Both petitions highlighted the critical impact on the functioning of the Charity Commissioner’s office if its staff were diverted for election-related activities. The petitions underscored the essential services provided by the office, which would be severely hampered due to the absence of its staff.
During the court proceedings, Advocate Pradeep Rajgopal, representing the ECI, declared,
“On legal instructions, the notices have been withdrawn by the Election Commission.”
This statement led to a significant development in the case, as it prompted the court to address the immediate release of the staff already requisitioned for election duty.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, responded to the concerns raised by Advocate RD Soni, who represented the Advocates Association. Soni’s plea for the release of the staff, given the withdrawal of the ECI notices, found favor with the court. The bench’s order stated,
“The staff of the office of Charity Commissioner will accordingly stand relieved,”
thereby addressing the immediate concerns regarding the operational capacity of the Charity Commissioner’s office.
Also read- Judicial Officer Accusing CJM Of Harassment Transferred To New Position (lawchakra.in)
The controversy initially erupted when the Charity Commissioner himself approached the court, challenging the requisition letter issued by the Collector and Election Commissioner. The letter had sought the transfer of his staff for upcoming election duties in the state, a move that the Charity Commissioner contended would significantly disrupt the workflow and services provided by his office.
Advocate Harshad Bhadbhade, representing the Charity Commissioner, emphasized the coercive nature of the requisition letter, which allegedly included threats of police action from the Worli police station in Mumbai if the directives were not followed. Bhadbhade’s argument highlighted the undue pressure placed on the Charity Commissioner, a position equated with that of a Principal District Judge, underscoring the legal and administrative overreach involved.
The bench’s decision to halt the ECI notices earlier and its subsequent directive for the staff’s relief underscore the judiciary’s role in maintaining the balance between electoral processes and the uninterrupted functioning of essential administrative services. This case reflects the complexities involved in managing election duties while ensuring that critical government functions are not compromised.
As the staff of the Charity Commissioner’s office return to their regular duties, the resolution of this case marks a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue between electoral needs and administrative integrity. The Bombay High Court’s intervention has not only provided immediate relief to the affected staff and the services they provide but also set a precedent for handling similar situations in the future.
