Rajasthan High Court Pulls Up State, Election Commission Over Delay in Municipal Polls, Dismisses Plea of Former Sarpanchs Seeking Continuation as Chairpersons
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed writ petitions by former Sarpanchs who became municipal chairpersons after their Panchayats were merged, holding they cannot continue beyond their fixed term. Invoking Article 243U of the Constitution and Sections 7 and 322(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, the Court affirmed that, upon dissolution, powers vest in an officer appointed as Administrator, not outgoing elected members. The Bench criticised the State Government and the State Election Commission for failing to hold municipal polls on time, noting that such delays undermine the Constitution’s mandate of democratic self-government.
The writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan arose following the merger of certain Gram Panchayats into newly formed municipalities in 2021. The Sarpanchs of those Panchayats, including the petitioners, were allowed to continue as Chairpersons or Vice-Chairpersons of the municipalities. Their tenure, however, was tied to the statutory five-year term fixed under the Constitution and the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.
The petitioners challenged their removal from office upon expiry of this period in January 2025. They contended that they ought to have been permitted to continue until fresh elections were conducted. Their case was that the authorities had failed in their constitutional duty to hold elections within the stipulated time and that their removal was arbitrary and discriminatory.
They argued that under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, when a Panchayati Raj Institution is dissolved, the Government has discretion to entrust charge to any person. By contrast, under the Municipalities Act, 2009, administration upon dissolution rests with an “officer.” The petitioners alleged that this distinction amounted to hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
They further relied on Article 243U of the Constitution, which mandates that elections to constitute municipalities must be held before expiry of their five-year duration or within six months of dissolution. They submitted that both the State Government and the State Election Commission had failed in this constitutional obligation, and therefore they should be allowed to continue in office until elections were completed.
In support, petitioners referred to judgments including Guddi v. State of Rajasthan and a decision of the Allahabad High Court, seeking to argue that elected representatives should not be displaced in favour of administrators.
The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, opposed the petitions. They submitted that the term of the petitioners had expired by law and no writ of mandamus could extend it. They pointed to Section 7 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which prescribes the tenure of Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons, and Section 322(3)(b), which authorises appointment of officers as administrators upon dissolution. They distinguished Panchayati Raj Institutions and municipalities as separate constitutional entities governed by distinct schedules and statutes.
The respondents also cited precedents, including Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, to argue that no relief could be granted absent violation of a legal right. They stressed that the petitioners’ claim would directly breach the constitutional provisions under Articles 243E and 243U, which prescribe the term of five years and prohibit continuation thereafter.
The Court recorded: “The petitioners cannot be permitted to continue on the post of Chairman, in the capacity of Administrator, in terms of Article 243U of the Indian Constitution and Section 7 of the Act of 2009.”
It further observed: “The petitioners have failed to establish any violation or infringement of their rights, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
On the distinction between Panchayati Raj Institutions and municipalities, the Court stated: “The Panchayati Raj Institutions operate as per Eleventh Schedule attached to Article 243-G of the Constitution of India, the Municipal Bodies function as per Twelfth Schedule attached to Article 243-W of the Constitution of India. The mechanisms governing these two institutions are also different.”
The Bench analysed the statutory scheme: “In the event of dissolution of a Panchayati Raj Institution, the charge can be given to any person as per the discretion of the State Government. However, in the case of dissolution of a Municipal body, the charge can be given to any ‘officer’ in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009.”
In reference to cited precedent, it noted: “The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court cited and quoted above shall not have any bearing in the present case, as the provision of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 empowering the appointment of administrator is not under challenge in these writ petitions.”
On the constitutional scheme of tenure, the Court recorded: “The relief of continuation of the petitioners on their respective post, beyond the stipulated tenure, as sought by them, shall amount to breach of the constitutional provisions of Article 243-E of the Constitution of India.”
It further stated: “Once the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide the aforequoted orders, has finally decided the controversy pertaining to elections of the Panchayati Raj Institutions by accepting the State Election Commission’s undertaking that they shall complete the elections… then any relief, if granted to the present petitioners, would be overreaching the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The Court also addressed administrative propriety: “In administrative matters the Court should, therefore, ordinarily defer to the judgment of the administrators unless the decision is clearly violative of some statute or is shockingly arbitrary.”
On the delay in municipal elections, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed: “It is pertinent to note here that in-spite of the constitutional mandate, neither the Government of Rajasthan nor the Election Commission has adhered to the prescribed timeline for conducting elections of the Municipalities, which is quite an essential requirement for the health of local democracy.”
The Court added: “The maximum permissible period of six months, for such an arrangement, has too expired in the month of July, 2025, but still such SDOs are continuing to function as ‘Administrator’ of these Municipalities, which is in clear violation of the constitutional mandate… in utter violation of the principles of democratic governance at the local level.”
It went on to note: “In adherence to the importance of demarcation/divisions of the Municipalities, the Government is precluded from indefinitely postponing the election process of Municipalities, as such deferment is contrary to the mandate contained under Article 243U of the Indian Constitution. Both the Government of Rajasthan and the State Election Commission are under a constitutional obligation to conduct timely elections of the Municipalities… Hence, under such circumstances, the Election Commission cannot be allowed to close its eyes and sit like a silent spectator.”
The Court further recorded: “In the event of persistent failure and undue delay in conducting election process of the Municipalities, it becomes incumbent upon the State Election Commission to intervene and take all necessary measures to restore the democratic process.”
“Prolonged postponement of the municipal elections can lead to a governance vacuum at the local level, severely affecting the delivery of services and developmental activities at the grassroots level in urban areas.”
It stated: “In light of the aforesaid observations, no case for making any interference in the present writ petitions is made out, and the same are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.”
“Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan; the Election Commission of India; and the State Election Commission to look into the matter and to do the needful by taking necessary steps in compliance of the mandate contained under Article 243-U of the Constitution of India and Section 322(4) of the Act of 2009.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma with Ms. Kamini Pareek, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary and Mr. Sarthak Choubey; Mr. N.C. Sharma; Mr. G.S. Gouttam; Mr. Dhanraj Bhaskar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Harshita Thakral and Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma.
Case Title: Smt. Urmila Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & connected matters (common order)
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:37666
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11107/2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
