EC says no coercive steps for now; HC seeks reply on BLO duty notices for SIR exercise

4 min readJun 20, 2026 10:36 AM IST

The petitioners claimed that BLO duties are primarily restricted to government and semi-government employees and contended that such duties adversely affect the functioning of schools. (File Photo)

After the Election Commission (EC) on Friday stated that the petitioner private unaided schools and their teachers need not, for the present, apprehend any coercive action, the Bombay High Court sought its reply to pleas challenging show-cause notices issued for not reporting for duty as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) as part of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The EC stated that 120 teachers from educational institutions had already joined the exercise in Mumbai and that there was no requirement for additional staff at present. In response, the petitioners sought to know whether the list included private unaided school teachers against whom notices had been issued and whether they had joined voluntarily. The court said these questions could be addressed in the EC’s reply.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad was hearing pleas filed by Malad Cosmopolitan Education Trust, which manages the private unaided minority schools Children’s Academy at Thakur Complex in Kandivali (East) and Bachani Nagar in Malad (East), the Unaided School Forum, Marwadi Sammelan and aggrieved teachers.

The petitioners claimed that BLO duties are primarily restricted to government and semi-government employees and contended that such duties adversely affect the functioning of schools. Apprehending “serious coercive steps” through FIRs, as seen in other cases in the city, they challenged the notices.

Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni and Advocate Akshay Shinde, appearing for the EC, stated that there was “no urgency” to requisition teachers from the petitioners’ institutions as BLOs.

“This controversy is not arising out of any of the processes conducted outside Mumbai, where we have sufficient manpower and are not looking at educational institutions there. This is restricted only to Mumbai city and Mumbai suburban areas,” Kumbhakoni submitted.

He added that while not all BLOs appointed in the Mumbai city area belonged to educational institutions, 120 BLOs appointed in the suburban area were from educational institutions other than those run by the petitioners and had already reported for duty and commenced work under the SIR exercise.

Story continues below this ad

“We do not require any new persons or staff members from these petitioner institutions,” he stated.

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for the petitioners, sought to know whether the teachers who had joined had done so voluntarily and whether they were free to withdraw from the exercise.

“They have joined because they received notices stating that either they report for duty or face FIRs for disobeying a public servant,” he claimed.

“They are doing a national duty and have joined voluntarily. Let the process continue,” Kumbhakoni responded.

Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas submitted that an FIR had been registered against staff of private aided institutions in Goregaon that he represented, despite such institutions not being required under the law and guidelines governing the duty in question.

He relied on the Bombay High Court’s interim order of May 22, which restrained authorities from deploying teachers of private unaided and minority schools for census duties.

Story continues below this ad

ACJ Ghuge recorded Kumbhakoni’s statement that “for the present petitioners need not be apprehensive” and sought the EC’s reply by July 2, followed by the petitioners’ rejoinder by July 10, and posted further hearing to July 16.

Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.

Expertise & Authority

Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.

Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:

Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:

Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).

Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).

Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.

Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.

Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.

Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More

Tags:

Central Mumbai

Mumbai court

Mumbai Teachers