Click the Play button to listen to article

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot halt the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti on the ground that allegations of electoral irregularities or malpractices are pending police inquiry.

The Court termed the SDM's action in deferring the election as “wholly untenable, manifestly illegal and contrary to rule of law”, observing that such action lacked statutory backing and exceeded the powers conferred upon him as an Executive Magistrate.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “Sub Divisional Magistrate's action… to halt the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Indora… is wholly untenable, manifestly illegal and contrary to rule of law. Such action lacks statutory backing. It exceeds the power conferred upon him as an Executive Magistrate and transgresses the constitutional mandate.”

Background:

The petitioner, Ankush Indoria, was one of the 26 elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, Indora, District Kangra, following the Panchayati Raj elections held in May 2026. Although all elected members took oath on June 8, 2026, the election for Chairman and Vice-Chairman was not conducted.

The petitioner approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court alleging that the authorities had failed to discharge their statutory duty to convene the election meeting.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Indora, justified the delay on the ground that a complaint alleging horse-trading, monetary inducements and attempts to influence the election was pending inquiry before the SDPO, Indora.

The High Court held that Section 79 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 mandates that the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman must be held immediately after the elected members take oath. The Court clarified that although the seven-day timeline under Rule 85(1-A) of the Election Rules was subsequently omitted, the amendment did not alter the statutory mandate under Section 79.

The Court rejected the SDM's justification for deferring the election pending inquiry into allegations of horse-trading and monetary inducements. It noted that the complainant was not an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti and that none of the elected members had raised any such complaint. More importantly, the Court held that the officer had no power to defer the election on this ground.

The Court further observed that the Panchayati Raj Act provides a specific mechanism for challenging elections through an election petition. Allegations of corrupt practices are among the grounds on which an election can subsequently be declared void. Therefore, such allegations could not be used by the executive officer to postpone the election.

Rejecting the State's reliance on the powers of an Executive Magistrate under the BNSS, the Court held that Sections 14 and 31–33 of the BNSS neither applied to the situation nor conferred any power upon the SDM to override the specific provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act and Election Rules.

The Court held that the SDM's inaction effectively thwarted the functioning of a democratically elected institution and undermined the will of the electorate. It observed that executive interference in the electoral process, without statutory backing, is contrary to the constitutional scheme and the spirit of democratic local self-governance.

Taking note that the authorities had subsequently fixed August 13, 2026 for the election, the Court directed that the meeting be convened in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition.

Case Name: Ankush Indoria v/s State Election Commission & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No.11710 of 2026

Date of Decision: 06.08.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View

Tags: