Reena Suresh Alhat v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Background
Two candidates contesting the Pune Municipal Corporation elections approached the Supreme Court. Reena Suresh Alhat's nomination had been rejected, and her writ petition challenging that rejection was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on grounds of a constitutional bar and the availability of an alternative remedy. Separately, Reshma Anil Bhosale, a BJP-sponsored candidate, had been allotted the party's election symbol, but a rival candidate's writ petition led the High Court to stay that allotment pending further proceedings.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court declined to entertain either special leave petition. It held that these were local body elections under a State law whose outcome was unlikely to have any effect beyond Pune city; that the High Court was itself a constitutional court whose orders were subject to appellate jurisdiction; that the petitioners still had the alternative remedy of an election petition after the results were declared; and that Article 136 is a purely discretionary jurisdiction which should not be exercised lightly given the volume of more significant matters pending before the Court. The Court quoted Justice Frankfurter's caution against courts over-extending themselves on "insignificant" cases at the expense of weightier ones, and dismissed both SLPs.
Lesson Learnt
The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with local body election disputes mid-process, even urgent ones, because the law provides a dedicated post-election remedy (an election petition): litigants should be prepared to pursue that statutory route rather than expect the Supreme Court to short-circuit an ongoing election.