Eight BMC election aspirants have moved the Bombay High Court alleging that Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar misused his office to interfere with the nomination process in Colaba, pressuring officials to reject their nominations to benefit his relatives contesting on BJP tickets.
The petitioners say they submitted all required documents and were present before the deadline but were deliberately delayed, obstructed, and denied acceptance of their nomination forms, allegedly at Narwekar’s behest, undermining free and fair elections.
The High Court declined urgent hearing but will hear the PIL; AAP has backed the allegations, claiming improper conduct by the Returning Officer, citing possible CCTV evidence, and accusing Narwekar of hijacking the election machinery.
BMC Elections: Speaker Rahul Narwekar Accused Of Stalling Nominations Of Candidates In His Constituency
The candidates alleged their complaints to election authorities went unanswered and that the alleged interference was “solely to benefit his brother, sister-in-law and cousin” and secure political advantage for the BJP by preventing rival candidates from contesting.
Eight aspirants for the upcoming Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections have approached the Bombay High Court, alleging that Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar misused his position to interfere with the nomination process in South Mumbai’s Colaba area to favour his relatives.
In their petition, the candidates alleged that Narwekar pressured the Returning Officer (RO) and police officials to reject their nomination papers for wards 224 to 227, which fall under the Colaba Assembly constituency represented by him. Several of Narwekar’s close relatives are contesting from these wards on BJP tickets, his sister-in-law Harshita Narwekar from Ward 225, brother Makarand Narwekar from Ward 226, and cousin Gauravi Shivalkar from Ward 227.
The petitioners, Baban Govind Mahadik, Niraj Harising Rathod, Vaishali Nhanu Gawade, Mahabub Imam Hussain Maddanawar, Parichay Kishor Bhoir, Manoj Dhonduram More, Rakhsana Ahmad Shafik Shaikh and Margaret Da Costa, claimed that they had submitted their nomination forms along with all required documents and security deposits to RO Krushna Jadhav and had obtained tokens before the 5 pm deadline on December 30, 2025.
Despite this, the plea alleged, they were made to wait until late evening and were eventually forced out of the RO’s office premises at the behest of the Speaker. “He forced the Election Returning Officer and police machinery not to accept the nomination forms and thereby interfered with free and fair elections by misusing his political power and position as Speaker,” the petition stated.
The candidates further alleged that their complaints to election authorities went unanswered and that the alleged interference was solely to benefit his brother, sister-in-law and cousin and secure political advantage for the BJP by preventing rival candidates from contesting.
The Bombay High Court earlier declined to grant an urgent hearing and said it would hear the PIL and other related PIL in due course. The petitioners have sought directions to the State Election Commission (SEC) to accept their nomination forms and have also demanded suspension and disciplinary action against the Returning Officer.
Speaker Faces the Flak
Meanwhile, political parties have escalated the allegations. Aam Aadmi Party leader Ruben Mascarenhas claimed that Ward 227 candidate Professor Margaret Da Costa was “physically obstructed” by Narwekar’s entourage despite being present well before the deadline. He said the SEC had sought a report from the BMC commissioner, which reportedly found merit in the complaint and held the RO’s conduct to be improper.
AAP also accused Narwekar of hijacking the election machinery in Colaba. In a statement, AAP Mumbai president Preeti Sharma Menon alleged that the RO acted illegally at the Speaker’s behest by not following mandatory procedures, including issuing tokens and accepting forms from candidates present within the premises before the deadline.
AAP claimed that CCTV footage would establish that its candidate Margaret Da Costa, a senior citizen, was inside the RO’s office premises, had paid the requisite fee, and was waiting to submit her papers when she was denied the opportunity.