High Court of Bombay Hears Writ Petitions Challenging the Constitutionality of Maharashtra Act IX of 2017. Petitioners Contend that Multi-Member Wards and Direct Election of President Violate Article 243R and Equality Clauses.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Act No. IX of 2017 and the earlier Ordinance, which amended municipal laws to introduce multi-member ward system and direct election of President.

Quashment of the impugned Act; declaration that the State lacks power to introduce different election systems for municipal areas; declaration that granting more than one vote is illegal; declaration that the formation of wards is ultra vires Article 243R; and other consequential reliefs.

The petitioner, an advocate and office bearer of a political party, was aggrieved by the amendment which allegedly violated Article 243R by permitting multiple councillors per ward and giving each voter multiple votes, thereby undermining the single member constituency principle. The petitioner also alleged that the State was arbitrarily changing the election system and that electoral roll preparation was beyond the State's power.

The petition was filed in June 2016 against Ordinance No. IX of 2016. During pendency, the State Legislature passed Act IX of 2017 replacing the ordinance. The petitioner was allowed to amend the petition to challenge the Act on 13.12.2017. No prior adjudication on the merits of the challenge. The petitioner refers to a previous High Court judgment upholding the 2011 amendment in W.P. No.10354/2011 and 7567/2011.

Whether the introduction of multi-member ward system and direct election of President via Act IX of 2017 violates Article 243R of the Constitution? Whether the State Legislature has the power to introduce two different election systems for different municipal areas under various municipal Acts, thereby violating Article 14? Whether the State has the power to grant more than one vote to an elector and whether this violates constitutional provisions? Whether the State has the power to prepare the electoral roll and use the same voter list more than once in municipal elections, contrary to the scheme of the Representation of Peoples Act and Article 324? Whether the formation of wards as per the Act is ultra vires Article 243R which mandates single member constituencies?

Article 243R provides for election of a person from a territorial constituency (ward) and envisages single member constituencies; multi-member ward system is in direct conflict. The State has no power to create two different election systems for different municipal areas, which violates Article 14. Granting more than one vote to an elector is illegal and beyond the State's powers under the Constitution. The State Government has no power to prepare electoral rolls, as that function belongs to the State Election Commission under Article 324; using the same voter list multiple times is impermissible. The State is acting arbitrarily and capriciously by repeatedly changing the election system, which undermines fair elections.

Writ Petition No.7259/2016 filed in June 2016 by petitioner Kiran Kadam, advocate and office bearer of ‘The Bharip Bahujan Mahasangh’, along with other connected petitions, challenging Ordinance No. IX of 2016 amending municipal laws. On 19.05.2016, the State promulgated the Ordinance. During pendency, the Maharashtra Act No. IX of 2017 was enacted replacing the ordinance. Leave to amend the petition to challenge the Act was granted by the High Court on 13.12.2017. The matters were heard together and reserved for judgment on 29.06.2018.

• Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 81, Article 243R, Article 324, Article 243ZF, Article 251, Article 254
• Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (also known as Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949): Section 5(3), Section 7A
• Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965: Section 10 (proviso), Section 51A1A
• Representation of Peoples Act, 1950: