Himachal Pradesh government has challenged the High Court’s directive to conduct panchayat elections before April 30 by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The state has based its appeal on two primary grounds.
The first argument concerns the timeline provided by the High Court division bench. The petition contends that the four-day deadline given to the state government to issue the panchayat election roster is unreasonable. The government has pointed to a 2021 case (Manish Dharmayak matter) where another division bench had allowed three months for hearing objections after the roster was issued. The state argues that the bench hearing the current petition has not clarified its position on this discrepancy.
The second argument relates to the Disaster Management Act. The petition seeks clarity on whether panchayat elections can be postponed temporarily when the Act is in force in the state. The government has requested legal clarification on this matter, noting that while the Disaster Management Act is a central legislation, the Panchayati Raj Act falls under state jurisdiction.
Himachal Pradesh Advocate General Anoop Ratan clarified that the government has no intention of delaying the panchayat elections. He emphasized the importance of clarifying the interpretation of law, particularly given the differing opinions from division benches regarding objections after roster publication. He noted that the tenure of panchayats ended on January 31, and the Panchayati Raj Act mandates elections within six months of the term’s expiry.
High Court’s strong observations
The High Court division bench had made stringent remarks in its January 9 order, stating that the government cannot postpone elections using the disaster law as an excuse. The bench emphasized that orders issued under the Disaster Management Act cannot obstruct the functioning of the Election Commission, noting that the Constitution is supreme and the Commission is an independent constitutional body.
The court had suggested that if there were delays in new delimitation, elections could be conducted based on the 2011 census and previous delimitation.
The state government had argued that natural disasters had affected roads and basic infrastructure in several areas, making it impossible to conduct elections. Additionally, the reorganization and delimitation work of some panchayats remained pending. The Election Commission informed the court that it had made preparations and was awaiting the government’s reservation roster.
Petitioner’s arguments
A petitioner in the case had argued that normal life had resumed in the state, pointing out that if the government could celebrate its three-year anniversary with major events, elections should also be possible. The court rejected the government’s attempt to use the disaster law and the Devendra Singh Negi case regarding Shimla district council delimitation as shields to delay elections.
The division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma, had directed that elections be completed by April 30 and instructed the State Election Commission, Panchayati Raj Department, and Urban Development Department to work collaboratively under the Commission’s guidance.
