top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city...

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city will get a ‘Hindu Marathi’ person to head India’s richest civic body, while the Opposition Shiv Sena (UBT)-Maharashtra Navnirman Sena also harbour fond hopes of a miracle that could ensure their own person for the post. The Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) optimism stems from expectations of possible political permutations-combinations that could develop with a realignment of forces as the Supreme Court is hearing the cases involving the Shiv Sena-Nationalist Congress Party this week. Catapulted as the largest single party, the BJP hopes to install a first ever party-man as Mayor, but that may not create history. Way back in 1982-1983, a BJP leader Dr. Prabhakar Pai had served in the top post in Mumbai (then Bombay). Incidentally, Dr. Pai hailed from Udupi district of Karnataka, and his appointment came barely a couple of years after the BJP was formed (1980), capping a distinguished career as a city father, said experts. Originally a Congressman, Dr. Pai later shifted to the Bharatiya Janata Party, then back to Congress briefly, founded the Janata Seva Sangh before immersing himself in social activities. Second Administrator The 2026 Mayoral elections have evoked huge interest not only among Mumbaikars but across the country as it comes after nearly four years since the BMC was governed by an Administrator. This was only the second time in the BMC history that an Administrator was named after April 1984-May 1985. On both occasions, there were election-related issues, the first time the elections got delayed for certain reasons and the second time the polling was put off owing to Ward delimitations and OBC quotas as the matter was pending in the courts. From 1931 till 2022, Mumbai has been lorded over by 76 Mayors, men and women, hailing from various regions, backgrounds, castes and communities. They included Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, even a Jew, etc., truly reflecting the cosmopolitan personality of the coastal city and India’s financial powerhouse. In 1931-1932, the Mayor was a Parsi, J. B. Boman Behram, and others from his community followed like Khurshed Framji Nariman (after whom Nariman Point is named), E. A. Bandukwala, Minoo Masani, B. N. Karanjia and other bigwigs. There were Muslims like Hoosenally Rahimtoola, Sultan M. Chinoy, the legendary Yusuf Meherally, Dr. A. U. Memon and others. The Christian community got a fair share of Mayors with Joseph A. D’Souza – who was Member of Constituent Assembly representing Bombay Province for writing-approving the Constitution of India, M. U. Mascarenhas, P. A. Dias, Simon C. Fernandes, J. Leon D’Souza, et al. A Jew Elijah Moses (1937-1938) and a Sikh M. H. Bedi (1983-1984), served as Mayors, but post-1985, for the past 40 years, nobody from any minority community occupied the august post. During the silver jubilee year of the post, Sulochana M. Modi became the first woman Mayor of Mumbai (1956), and later with tweaks in the rules, many women ruled in this post – Nirmala Samant-Prabhavalkar (1994-1995), Vishakha Raut (997-1998), Dr. Shubha Raul (March 2007-Nov. 2009), Shraddha Jadhav (Dec. 2009-March 2012), Snehal Ambedkar (Sep. 2014-March 2017). The last incumbent (before the Administrator) was a government nurse, Kishori Pednekar (Nov. 2019-March 2022) - who earned the sobriquet of ‘Florence Nightingale’ of Mumbai - as she flitted around in her full white uniform at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic, earning the admiration of the citizens. Mumbai Mayor – high-profile post The Mumbai Mayor’s post is considered a crucial step in the political ladder and many went on to become MLAs, MPs, state-central ministers, a Lok Sabha Speaker, Chief Ministers and union ministers. The formidable S. K. Patil was Mayor (1949-1952) and later served in the union cabinets of PMs Jawaharlal Nehru, Lah Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi; Dahyabhai V. Patel (1954-1955) was the son of India’s first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel; Manohar Joshi (1976-1977) became the CM of Maharashtra, later union minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha; Chhagan Bhujbal (1985-1986 – 1990-1991) became a Deputy CM.

Elections and the Constitution: A Voter’s Guide

Part 2: Two Different Acts and Detailed Provisions

The part 1 of this series traced the constitutional foundations of India’s election system, outlining the powers of the Election Commission under Articles 324–329. It explained how electoral rolls are mandated, how commissioners are appointed and protected, and why independence of the Commission is central to free and fair elections.


Part 2 focuses on the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951, arguing that understanding the specific legal provisions governing voter registration and electoral rolls is crucial to grasping how India’s electoral process functions in practice.


The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are different. The provisions that are not in the 1950 Act are found in the 1951 Act. The detailed explanation regarding elections is in the 1951 Act. Whereas, all the information regarding voter registration and electoral rolls is found in the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The provisions regarding electoral rolls are found in Parts 2(B) and 3 of the same Act. As per the provision of Section 13 (D), it is clear that there will be no separate electoral roll for the Lok Sabha elections. This provision states that the latest electoral roll for the assembly constituencies falling under the respective Lok Sabha constituency will be deemed to be the electoral roll for the Lok Sabha constituency.


As per Section 15, an electoral roll will be prepared for each assembly constituency. It states that this electoral roll will be prepared under the supervision of the Election Commission of India in accordance with the provisions of this Act. This Act has given all powers to the Election Commission of India regarding the electoral roll.


Section 16 provides a detailed explanation of who is disqualified from being registered as a voter. If the person concerned is not a citizen of India, has been declared by a competent court to be of unsound mind, and has been disqualified under law for having committed an illegal act or other offence in the election, he shall be disqualified as a voter, and his name shall be removed from the electoral roll. If the competent court later decides that he cannot be disqualified, his name shall be restored to the relevant electoral roll, as is also stated in the same section.


It is clear from this that there are only two prerequisites for registration in the electoral roll. One of them is that the person concerned must be a citizen of India and must have attained the age of 18 years. If these two conditions are fulfilled, then that person can be registered as a voter.


According to Section 17, any voter can register as a voter in only one constituency. This means that each voter can vote only once in each election. For this reason, since the 1960s, ink has been applied to the left index finger of a voter who goes to vote.


Indrajit Barua vs. Central Election Commission

This case is considered to be an important case in the history of the Central Election Commission. In this case, the petitioners had challenged the 1979 electoral rolls in Assam in the Supreme Court. The petitioners had claimed that the names of many non-citizens of India were included in the electoral rolls. In this judgement, the Supreme Court laid down three things in total.


One – The provisions of the law should be strictly followed while including anyone’s name in the electoral roll.


Two – If any voter objects to the inclusion of another voter’s name in the electoral roll, he should prove it before the competent authorities. For example, if a voter objects to the inclusion of another voter’s name in the electoral roll and says that the other voter is not a citizen of India, therefore his name should be excluded from the electoral roll; in such a case, the person who has objected should prove that the other voter is not a citizen of India. This is what is called ‘burden of proof’.


Three – Objections to the inclusion of names in the electoral roll should be decided by the competent authority. While making this selection, the concerned authority should take sufficient care so that only the names of persons who are Indian citizens are included in the electoral roll.


More in the next instalment.


(The writer is an author and digital journalism teacher. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page