The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to complete Panchayat elections in the State within 3 months under the existing reservation arrangement, including 27 % reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The bench said the polls cannot be delayed pending the Dedicated Backward Classes Commission's inquiry, report or the process of giving lawful effect to its recommendations on OBC reservations.

"The elections shall not be conducted by treating the OBC-reserved seats as open seats merely because the Dedicated Commission's inquiry remains pending. Reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women shall be maintained in accordance with the applicable laws, subject to the aggregate ceiling governing vertical reservation" the Court directed in its order.

A Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad also asked the State Government to provide the staff, funds, security, and other logistical assistance the SEC may require to hold elections within 3 months.

Case in brief

The Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions seeking directions to the State Government and the SEC to complete the electoral-roll process and hold elections to the three-tier Panchayati Raj institutions within a time-bound period.

The terms of the previous elected Panchayat bodies expired in May 2026. On May 18, the State had constituted the Uttar Pradesh State Rural Local Bodies Dedicated Backward Classes Commission.

It is presently conducting an empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness among OBCs in rural local bodies.

However, due to the ongoing inquiry, the election process remained stalled and therefore, these petitions were filed before the Court.

Before the High Court, the State argued that the need to collect empirical data to determine OBC reservation was necessary as per the Supreme Court judgments.

For context, in the Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra, the Apex Court noted that a triple test is to be followed before provision of reservation for the OBC category. The said triple test involves

(1) setting up a dedicated Commission to conduct a contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of the backwardness qua local bodies, within the State;

(2) specifying the proportion of reservation required to be provisioned local body-wise in light of recommendations of the Commission, so as not to fall foul of overbreadth; and

(3) not exceeding an aggregate of 50 percent of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.

High Court's observations

The High Court held, however, that the inquiry and the subsequent process for implementing the Commission's recommendations could not keep elections pending indefinitely.

The Bench examined the Supreme Court's decisions in Dr. K. Krishna Murthy vs. Union of India, Vikas Kishanrao Gawali and Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which deal with the requirements for reservation for backward classes in local bodies.

The Court explained that the triple-test requirements for having empirical data is aimed at providing restructured OBC reservation. However, it does not make completion of the inquiry a condition precedent to holding every local body election.

The Bench held that the State cannot defer overdue elections throughout the process of collecting data, preparing recommendations and undertaking any necessary legal changes.

Therefore, the Court specifically directed that the upcoming Panchayat elections be held under the existing reservation framework, including 27% reservation for OBCs.

The Dedicated Commission was directed to continue its inquiry and prepare its report within the period already prescribed, or within such extended period as may be provided by the State Government.

The State has been asked to examine the recommendations and, wherever required, undertake the statutory steps and amendments for their lawful implementation.

It may be noted that the petitioners had also challenged the Government Order dated May 25, 2026 under which the outgoing Gram Pradhans were appointed as Administrators after the elected Panchayat bodies completed their terms.

The petitioners had questioned the constitutional validity of Sections 12(3-A) and 12-BB(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, in light of Article 243-E of the Constitution.

The Court, however, rejected the challenge to the GO and the appointments of outgoing Pradhans as Administrators. It also declined to declare Sections 12(3-A) and 12-BB(3) unconstitutional.

"A bare reading of section 12(3-A) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 discloses that power is to be exercised where due to unavoidable circumstances or in public interest it is not practicable to hold an election to constitute a gram panchayat before expiry of its duration. We do not find the provision to be unreasonable in the sense that absolute power is vested with the government to hold it to be in direct conflict with the provision as contained under Article 243-E of the Constitution", the Court remarked.

The Court noted that the reasons for unavoidable circumstances or public interest are contextual given to a particular situation. However, it added that the power must be exercised reasonably.

The Court clarified that the 3-month period granted for completing the elections would not extend an Administrator's tenure beyond the limit prescribed by law. It said that temporary administration cannot indefinitely substitute for elected local self-government.

Allowing the petitions insofar as they sought directions for timely elections, the Bench ordered the State Government and the State Election Commission to begin preparations forthwith and complete the Panchayat elections within three months.