Panchayati Raj Elections Must Be Held Before Five-Year Term Ends: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma has directed completion of the remaining reconstitution work by 28 February 2026 and conduct of Panchayati Raj elections by 30 April 2026. The dispute arose from a public interest plea challenging the State’s delay and an SDMA order linking the polls to restoration of road connectivity. The Court held that orders under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 cannot override the State Election Commission’s constitutional functions or justify postponement and said Article 243E requires the election process to be completed before the five-year term expires. It noted that the agencies involved should take decisions together, rather than act unilaterally in a manner that creates institutional conflict and weakens compliance with the constitutional mandate.
Two individuals filed a public interest petition seeking directions for timely elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions in Himachal Pradesh before completion of the existing bodies’ five-year term. They referred to the constitutional scheme governing tenure and election responsibility and relied on Supreme Court decisions on completing local body elections within the prescribed timeline.
Material placed on record included a State Election Commission notification dated 17.11.2025 stating that delimitation for specified Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, Zila Parishads and certain Urban Local Bodies had been completed and finally notified, and that electoral rolls for specified units had been prepared. The notification also recorded the impending expiry of the term of Panchayati Raj Institutions on 31.01.2026 and separate expiry dates for certain Urban Local Bodies.
The record also included departmental and Commission communications from 2024–2025 on proposed schedules for re-organisation, delimitation, reservation and preparation of electoral rolls, along with a Commission press note on voter-list inclusion. An order dated 08.10.2025 issued by the State Executive Committee under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (citing Section 24(e)) stated that Panchayati Raj elections would be held after restoration of road connectivity.
The State referred to disaster-related constraints, ongoing delimitation/reservation steps under the Panchayati Raj Act and the Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, and statutory provisions cited as enabling interim arrangements, including Sections 120, 128 and 140(3)–(6) of the Panchayati Raj Act.
The Court stated: “A statutory provision and order passed thereunder cannot override or supersede the constitutional provisions as well as constitutional machinery like Election Commission. Status of Election Commission is well recognized and in case of conflict between the statutory provisions/order and the constitutional provisions and orders passed by constitutional machinery, the Constitutional provisions and order passed by Constitutional Machinery shall prevail and, therefore, observations in this regard made in Devinder Singh Negi’s case (supra) are to be read accordingly and therefore, the same cannot be used for undermining the status of Election Commission, and therefore, order passed by the Chairman, SDMA, shall not have overriding impact upon the functioning of the Election Commission. Thus, Election Commission can proceed further ignoring the order dated 08.10.2025, but definitely taking into consideration the factual matrix and the situation prevailing in the State of Himachal Pradesh.”
It recorded: “In fact, none of the component of the State, including the State Election Commission has to thrust its decision upon others, but all limbs of the system involved in governance, should act harmoniously in consultation with each other by taking decisions after due consolidation and consideration of facts and circumstances, instead of deciding unilaterally causing tug-of-war between them, hampering the interest of larger public and violation of Constitutional mandate.”
It recorded (while reproducing precedent on election timelines): “breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities which could distract the authorities from holding elections to the Municipality, but they are exceptional circumstances and under no circumstance the Election Commission would be justified in delaying the process of election after consulting the State Govt. and other authorities. But that should be an exceptional circumstance and shall not be a regular feature to extend the duration of the Municipality. Going by the provisions contained in Article 243-U, it is clear that the period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute the Municipality is mandatory in nature and has to be followed in all respects.”
It recorded: “From the reading of the said provisions it is clear that the powers of the State Election Commission in respect of conduct of elections is no less than that of the Election Commission of India in their respective domains”
The Court directed: “In view of above discussion, State Election Commission, Panchayati Raj Department, Urban Development Department and SDMA, are directed sit together, decide together and march together, harmoniously to act in consonance with constitutional mandate for reconstitution of Panchayati Raj Institutions and ULBs by completing all process by the respondent-State’s Departments by 28.02.2026 and thereafter, conduct of elections within eight weeks thereafter, i.e. or or before 30.04.2026. In this exercise, State Election Commission, through State Election Commissioner, shall perform duty of elder brother and all others shall act in aid of Election Commission to conduct the elections in compliance of aforesaid directions and in consonance with Constitutional mandate. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Mr. Khem Raj, Mr. Kiran Kumar, Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Mr. Tarun Mehta, Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Mr. Vishal Verma, Mr. Vinod Kumar and Mr. Sanjeev Pathania, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejasavi Dogra and Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 and 4; Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent-State; Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent-State Election Commission.
Case Title: Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:2737
Case Number: CWPIL No.115 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Justice Romesh Verma
