Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Manipur High Court's Extension Of Panchayat Election Deadline To October 16

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 2) declined to entertain a plea challenging the extension of the deadline for conducting Panchayat elections in the State of Manipur until October 16, 2026, observing that the High Court had already issued a specific direction requiring the State Election Commission to complete the electoral process within the stipulated period.

A partial court working days bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria heard a plea seeking a modification of the High Court's earlier directions, which permitted the State and the State Election Commission to conduct Panchayat elections on or before October 16, 2026.

The petitioner submitted that representatives had demitted office in 2022 and that the democratic mandate had expired nearly four years ago, moreover, despite repeated assurances before the courts, the State had failed to conduct elections within the timelines previously indicated.

"My preliminary objection is, my lord, he has outlived the electoral mandate, democratic mandate, four years back…Today four years have lapsed, my lord. Two times they have filed an affidavit that elections will be conducted... Both the dates have not complied, my lord " petitioner's counsel submitted.

The petitioners also challenged the legality of repeated appointments of Administrative Committees, submitting that such appointments violated Article 243E of the Constitution, which guarantees a five-year tenure for Panchayats and envisages timely elections.

They argued that the State could not indefinitely replace elected local bodies with Administrative Committees.

Another grievance related to the High Court's decision permitting Administrative Committees for Zilla Parishads by invoking Section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, dealing with removal of difficulties.

According to the petitioners, Section 92 of the Act contemplates only the appointment of an Administrator for Zilla Parishads in specified circumstances and does not authorise the constitution of Administrative Committees.

Further, the petitioner's submission about the demand for a fresh undertaking on behalf of the Respondent-State to hold the elections before October 16, 2026, was opposed by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the State.

SG Mehta submitted that the High Court's order itself was binding and that requiring another undertaking would unnecessarily expose the State to contempt proceedings if unforeseen developments affected the election schedule.

"Suppose there is some change in situation in October, what would we do? We would be in contempt.", SG Mehta submitted.

Rejecting the petitioner's repeated request for an undertaking from the Respondent-State, the Court noted that the High Court had already protected the petitioners' principal grievance by directing elections to be completed within a fixed timeline.

"If your right or interest is not affected, you already have direction given by the court to hold the election within a specific period.", the Court said.

Thus, it refused to interfere with the impugned order, and clarified that if the State failed to comply with the High Court's directions or acted contrary to law, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for relief.

The SLP was dismissed.

Cause Title: PHEIROIJAM HERAMANI AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS., Diary No. 35434-2026