Teachers cannot ordinarily be assigned electoral-roll duties during teaching days and school hours.

The Applicant, an Acting Headmaster of Zilla Parishad Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Bhoirwadi, had previously served as a Booth Level Officer (“BLO”) Supervisor.

By orders dated 30 June 2026, he was relieved as BLO Supervisor and appointed as BLO for Part No. 69, while Respondent No. 2 appointed Smt. Mohini Londhe as BLO Supervisor.

On 1 July 2026, the Applicant represented that his additional responsibilities as Acting Headmaster, including administrative and academic duties for Standards I to XII, prevented him from properly discharging BLO duties during school hours.

Despite the representation, Respondent No. 2 directed initiation of criminal action under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“RPA 1950”).

Show-cause notices were issued on 7 and 8 July 2026, and the Applicant submitted written explanations reiterating his difficulty in performing election duties during school hours.

A final warning was served through WhatsApp on 9 July 2026, on which date Paud Police Station registered FIR No. 0217 of 2026 under Section 32 of the RPA 1950.

The Applicant invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking quashing of the FIR.

Whether a member of the teaching staff could be assigned duties relating to electoral-roll revision and election work during school-teaching days and within teaching hours.

Whether the Applicant’s alleged failure or inability to perform such BLO duties disclosed an offence under Section 32 of the RPA 1950 and warranted registration of the FIR.

Section 32(1) of the RPA 1950 penalises an electoral registration officer, assistant electoral registration officer, or other person required to perform official duties concerning preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls who, without reasonable cause, commits an act or omission in breach of that duty.

Section 32(3) further restricts cognizance unless a complaint is made by order of, or under authority from, the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer.

In Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School, (2008) 2 SCC 390, the Supreme Court directed that teaching staff should ordinarily be assigned electoral-roll revision and election duties on holidays, non-teaching days and non-teaching hours, and not during teaching days and teaching hours.

Relying on Umakant Ramkrushna Mahure v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1374, the Court reiterated that requiring teachers to perform BLO and electoral-roll duties during school hours violates the applicable statutory protections, including Sections 25 and 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; consequently, an FIR for refusal to perform such duties during school hours is not sustainable.

The Court also applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal principles to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The Applicant’s status as a member of the teaching staff and his performance of earlier BLO/BLO Supervisor duties were neither rebutted nor disputed.

The Court treated the substance of the grievance as the direction to perform electoral duties during school hours on teaching days.

Applying St. Mary’s School and Umakant Ramkrushna Mahure, the Court held that the Respondent No. 2 ought not to have assigned the Applicant electoral-roll and election duties during teaching hours.

The State produced no material demonstrating exceptional circumstances requiring the Applicant’s presence on election duty during school hours.

In these circumstances, the Applicant’s inability or refusal to assume the assigned BLO duties constituted no breach of official duty “without reasonable cause” under Section 32(1) of the RPA 1950.

The essential ingredients of the alleged offence were therefore absent, making continuation of the FIR an abuse of process.

It held that a teaching-staff member should not ordinarily be required to perform electoral-roll revision or election duties during teaching days and within teaching hours, and that the facts did not disclose an offence under Section 32 of the RPA 1950.

Exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court allowed the application, quashed and set aside FIR No. 0217 of 2026 registered by Paud Police Station, made no order as to costs, and disposed of the Criminal Application.