HP High Court Quashes Dy Commissioners' Power To Modify Panchayat Reservation Roster Beyond Article 243D Of Constitution
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State's decision to empower Deputy Commissioners to alter up to 5% of the reservation roster went beyond the framework prescribed under Article 243D of the Constitution and Section 125 of the Panchayati Raj Act.
It further stated that reservations in Panchayats must strictly follow population-based criteria and rotation, and any deviation from this scheme through executive discretion was impermissible.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “The criteria on the basis of which alteration to the extent of 5% has been provided by conferring power on Deputy Commissioner is beyond the scope of Article 243D of Constitution of India and Section 125 of Panchayati Raj Act…”
The Court further remarked that: “The power conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of geographical and other peculiar conditions is vague, unbridled and unguided and has no nexus with the object to be sought… rather it is in breach of these provisions.”
Background:
The dispute arose from a Notification dated 30 March 2026, through which the State amended the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. This amendment authorized Deputy Commissioners to modify the reservation roster of Panchayat seats and offices up to 5% based on “geographical and other peculiar conditions.
Originally, the State had proposed a different amendment via Notification dated 13 March 2026, aimed at preventing reservation of seats for the same category for three consecutive terms. This proposal was finalized on 21 March 2026. However, the State subsequently superseded this finalized amendment and introduced an entirely new provision conferring discretionary powers on Deputy Commissioners.
The petitioner contended that the amendment allowing the Deputy Commissioner to alter up to 5% of the reservation roster violated Article 243D of the Constitution and Section 125 of the Panchayati Raj Act.
In response, the State contended that the PIL was filed purely on the basis of personal interest by the petitioners to espouse their cause to continue with the reservation roster as it existed prior to the amendment.
Case Name: Vikesh Zinta & others V/s State of H.P. & others
Case No.: CWPIL No.32 of 2026
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
For the petitioner: Sr. Adv Ankush Dass Sood, Adv Ajay Sipahiya, Adv.Tarun Mehta, Adv Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Adv Shivam Prashar
For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State.
Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.