REENA SURESH ALHAT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 600, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
'F 
G 
H 
[2017] I S.C.R. 600 
REENA SURESH ALHAT 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6264 of20 I 7) 
FEBRUARY 13, 2017 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, Jf.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.
1978 (2) SCR 272 
(2008) 8 sec 216 
353 U.S. 500, 521 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
Para8 
Para9 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
(C)6264of 20I7. 
600
REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & 
601 
ANOTHER 
.. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2017 of the High 
A 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1663 of2017. 
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. 
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 
B 
c 
Corporation Act, 1949 (Act No. 59 of 1949). Petitioners in these two 
D 
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 
E 
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 
F 
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 
G 
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. 
H
602 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
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 
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. 
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. 
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 
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 
(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.
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 
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 
c 
in Rog{!rs v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77 S. 
D 
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 
E 
· face an accumulation of arrears or will dispose of its essential business 
in too hurried and therefore too shallow a way." 
12. We regret our inability to
examine the issues involved in these 
· !Wo case.s. Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
SLPs dismissed. 
F