Disposed¶20

Jagannath Pandurag Kharge v. the State Election Commission and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2026WP/332/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition (No. 332 of 2026, decided 22 January 2026; Chandrashekhar CJ & Shyam J) by voter seeking CCTV footage of Returning Officer's chamber proceedings, Panvel Municipal Corporation election, Prabhag-6B Kharghar; petition disposed of without merits - Election Petition remedy, prayer for CCTV recording to be made before designated Court, technical reason only, no prejudice to petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition because the petitioner shall have the remedy of filing an Election Petition; the prayer regarding production of the CCTV recording may be made by him before the designated Court. ¶19

Jagannath Pandurag Kharge vs the State Election Commission and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should entertain and grant the petitioner's request for CCTV recording (2:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. on 30 December 2025) of the proceedings in the chamber of respondent no. 2 at Sindhudurga Building, Sector-19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - footage the petitioner stated was intended for laying challenge to the election of the successful candidate from Prabhag-6B, Kharghar in the Panvel Municipal Corporation elections - or whether that prayer must instead be made before the designated Court through the Election Petition remedy.

¶14

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Writ Petition No. 332 of 2026 was disposed of without entering into the merits of the matter.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court's disinclination to entertain the writ petition arose on account of a technical reason alone.ratio¶21
The Court expressly stated that its technical-reason-based disinclination shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any other proceedings taken out by him or against him in connection with the election of Prabhag-6B, Kharghar in Panvel Municipal Corporation.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 332 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Suman Shyam, J.; decided 22 January 2026. A voter who intended to contest the Panvel Municipal Corporation 2025-2026 election from Prabhag-6B, Kharghar, and who alleged he was prevented from entering the chamber of the Returning Officer, sought a direction for production of CCTV recording-footage (2:00 p.m.-3:15 p.m., 30 December 2025) of proceedings in the chamber of respondent no. 2 at Sindhudurga Building, Sector-19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, stating the footage was for laying challenge to the election of the successful candidate. The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition: as the petitioner shall have the remedy of filing an Election Petition, the prayer regarding production of the CCTV recording may be made by him before the designated Court. The writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merits; the disinclination rested on a technical reason only and was expressly stated not to cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any other proceedings concerning the said election.

¶1

13-aswp-332-2026.doc

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 332 OF 2026

¶4

Jagannath Pandurang Kharge ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Elections Commission & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Jagannath P. Kharge, Petitioner in-person, present.

¶8

Mr. Akshay Pansare, i/b Mr. S. B. Shetye, Advocates for the Respondent No. 1.

¶9

SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE

¶10

Digitally signed by SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2026.02.05 11:14:46 +0530

¶11

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & SUMAN SHYAM, J.

¶12

DATE: 22^nd JANUARY 2026

¶13

PC:-

¶14

The petitioner is seeking a direction to provide CCTV recording from 2:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. on 30^th December 2025 regarding the proceedings in the chamber of the respondent no. 2 in Sindhudurga Building, Sector-19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai.

¶15

The petitioner says that he is a voter and he wanted to contest the election of Panvel Municipal Corporation 2025-2026 from Prabhag-6B, Kharghar but he was prevented from entering the chamber of the Returning Officer.

¶16

This is in the context of the Municipal Elections that the petitioner seeks CCTV recording-footage. The petitioner appearing in person states that the aforementioned CCTV recording is for

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

13-aswp-332-2026.doc

¶19

laying challenge to the election of the successful candidate. As the petitioner shall have the remedy of filing an Election Petition, the prayer regarding production of CCTV recording may be made by him before the designated Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶20

Writ Petition No. 332 of 2026 is disposed of without entering into the merits of the matter.

¶21

We may also indicate that our disinclination to entertain this writ petition is on account of a technical reason and this shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any other proceedings taken out by him or against him in connection with the election of Prabhag-6B, Kharghar in Panvel Municipal Corporation.

¶22

(SUMAN SHYAM, J)

¶23

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Jagannath Pandurag Kharge v. the State Election Commission and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Pandurag Kharge v. the State Election Commission and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravikant Ramchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Ashok Ramchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Shubhangi Ravikant Patil vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Jasleen Gurmeet Singh Batra vs Gurmeet Sing Surjit Singh Batra

Shubhangi Ravikant Patil vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Lakshachandi Columbia Corporation vs Punita Flat Owners Co. operative Housing Society Ltd.