Reservation Of Sarpanch Post Must Follow Statutory Rotation; Consecutive Reservation For Women Impermissible: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that where the office of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat was reserved for the Women category in the immediately preceding term, it must ordinarily revert to the Open (General) category in the succeeding term in compliance with the statutory principle of rotation under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The Court...
The Bombay High Court has held that where the office of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat was reserved for the Women category in the immediately preceding term, it must ordinarily revert to the Open (General) category in the succeeding term in compliance with the statutory principle of rotation under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The Court further observed that adherence to the rotation requirement does not dilute the legislative mandate of 50% reservation for women but merely regulates the manner in which such reservation is implemented across successive election terms.
A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe was hearing two writ petitions challenging the decisions of the respective Sub-Divisional Officers (SDOs) reserving the office of Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayats for the Women category for the 2025–2030 term. The petitioners contended that the offices had already been reserved for women during the 2020–2025 term and, under the second proviso to Rule 2A(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, ought to have been reserved for the Open (General) category in the succeeding term. The State argued that the draw of lots conducted by the SDOs was consistent with the statutory scheme and necessary to maintain the legislative requirement of 50% reservation for women. It also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay & Ors. [(2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 306] to justify the draw of lots.
The Court examined Rule 2A(4) and its provisos and held that the legislative intent was unambiguous. It observed that while the first proviso governs the draw of lots for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class of Citizens, the second proviso mandates that, in subsequent elections, Gram Panchayats where the office of Sarpanch had already been reserved for women must be excluded until all other Panchayats receive such reservation by rotation.
The Bench held that once the office had been reserved for women during the previous term, it necessarily had to be filled by a candidate from the Open (General) category in the succeeding term in accordance with the statutory rotation principle.
“… the lots could be drawn only in respect of offices of Sarpanchas reserved for the backward class of citizens and the same principle could not be applied for all offices of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats…,” the Court observed.
Rejecting the State's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Ramdas Patil, the Court held that the case concerned reservation of the office of Mayor and did not involve interpretation of Rule 2A(4) governing reservation of the office of Sarpanch.
The Court also rejected the contention that applying the rotation principle would undermine the statutory requirement of 50% reservation for women, holding that Section 30(4)(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 must be read harmoniously with Rule 2A(4), which prescribes the manner in which reservation is to operate across successive terms.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned reservation orders and directed the Collector to undertake a fresh exercise for determining reservation of the office of Sarpanch strictly in accordance with Rule 2A(4) and its provisos, treating the concerned offices as falling in the Open (General) category, if otherwise permissible in law, within six weeks.
Case Title: Narendra Subhash Pelmahale v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 12576 of 2025]