Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Vipin Arun Nikam, was the acting Headmaster of a Zilla Parishad school in Bhoirwadi, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. He was appointed as a Booth Level Officer (BLO) for Part No. 69 on 30 June 2026, in addition to his teaching and administrative responsibilities. As a member of the teaching staff, he was required to discharge BLO duties, which included electoral roll revision and election work, during school hours on teaching days. The applicant submitted a representation on 1 July 2026 to the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (Respondent No. 2), highlighting the difficulty of performing BLO duties alongside his full-time role as Headmaster, which involved managing standards I to XII. Despite this, Respondent No. 2 directed the BLO Supervisor to initiate criminal action against the applicant under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Show cause notices were issued, and the applicant responded with detailed explanations, reiterating his inability to take charge due to his existing workload. On 9 July 2026, a final warning and show cause notice were served via WhatsApp, and on the same day, an FIR (No. 0217 of 2026) was registered at Paud Police Station under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging that the applicant failed to perform his BLO duties. The applicant filed a criminal application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR. The core legal issue was whether a teaching staff member could be assigned BLO duties during school hours on teaching days and whether such assignment could form the basis of an offence under Section 32. The applicant’s counsel argued that the assignment was contrary to law and that no offence was committed, as the applicant had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to his teaching duties. The State did not dispute the factual averments but informed the Court that an application had been made to treat the FIR as a non-cognizable report. The Court examined the matter in light of the Supreme Court decision in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School, (2008) 2 SCC 390, which had directed that teachers should be put on election duties only on holidays, non-teaching days, and non-teaching hours, and that they should not ordinarily be put on duty on teaching days and within teaching hours. The Bombay High Court in Umakant Ramkrushna Mahure v. State of Maharashtra had quashed a similar FIR, holding that calling upon teachers to work as BLOs during school hours violated the law and that such FIRs would not be prosecuted. Applying these precedents, the Court held that Respondent No. 2 had no justification for assigning the applicant BLO duties during school hours on teaching days. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 32 – breach of official duty without reasonable cause – were not satisfied. The FIR was therefore an abuse of process and unsustainable. The Court allowed the application, quashed the FIR, and exercised its powers under Section 528 BNSS to set aside the criminal proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Breach of Official Duty under Section 32, Representation of the People Act, 1950 - The High Court, following Supreme Court directions in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School that teachers should not be assigned BLO duties on teaching days and within teaching hours, held that an FIR registered against a teacher for failing to perform such duties during school hours did not disclose the ingredients of the offence as there was no breach without reasonable cause. The Court exercised powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, noting that the assignment itself was contrary to law. (Paras 10-17, 19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, a member of teaching staff, could be assigned to the BLO duties of roll revisions and election work on school-teaching days, within teaching hours and whether the facts of this case warrant registration of an offence under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Final Decision
Application allowed; FIR No. 0217 of 2026 registered at Paud Police Station under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is quashed in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Law Points
- Teachers are not to be assigned electoral roll revision work on teaching days and within teaching hours
- directions in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School
- (2008) 2 SCC 390
- Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act
- 1950 requires breach of official duty without reasonable cause
- assigning BLO duties to teaching staff during school hours contrary to law renders FIR unsustainable.
