Bombay High Court Condemns SEC's 'Last-Minute' Action To Postpone Local Body Polls; Defers Combined Results To December 21

In a stinging rebuke, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on Tuesday came down heavily on the State Election Commission (SEC) for its 'last-minute' decision to postpone elections in several Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads areas across the state. While the Court stood short of quashing the postponement orders to avoid derailing the democratic process, it issued a crucial directive to safeguard electoral purity and stopped declaration of phased wise results in line with the Nagpur bench's recent order. A bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S Venegavkar ordered that the counting of votes and declaration of results for all Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads including those proceeding under the original schedule, shall be suspended until the polling process is completed in the postponed constituencies on December 20, 2025. Importantly, it directed that the results should be declared together on or after December 21, 2025. Case in brief Briefly put, the SEC last week postponed elections in nearly 20 select municipal councils and municipal panchayats citing procedural irregularities and the fact that statutory appeals regarding the rejection of nomination forms had not been decided by the competent authorities before the deadline. The SEC also said it would declare the results in two phases, on December 3 for polls to be held on December 2 and on December 21 for the elections to be held in the second phase on December 20. Challenging SEC's action to postpone elections decisions, a bunch of petitioners moved the HC claiming the same to be an arbitrary act as the Commission. It was submitted that the power of postponing the elections is not unguided and must have been exercised in exceptional circumstances. Before the HC, the Commission argued that proceeding with the elections without resolving these appeals would deprive candidates of their statutory right of withdrawal. The petitioners, however, contested this argument by submitting that the Commission was conscious that appeals would be instituted and might be decided close to the withdrawal deadline. They argued that if this was the case, as was being contended by the SEC, the Commission ought to have devised the calendar of events with foresight. High Court's order The High Court also found substance in the petitioners' argument and it was unimpressed by SEC's justification to revise elections schedule as it noted that the timing of the decision as a display of "avoidable administrative impropriety." Justice Venegavkar, writing for the Bench, observed that the appellate process is a "predictable part of the statutory scheme" and could not be termed an unforeseen emergency. The Court noted that the Commission, with administrative prudence, ought to have devised the election calendar to avoid a clash between appellate timelines and withdrawal dates. "The manner in which such authority was exercised in the present case, just 72 hours before the voting was to begin, betrays a lack of administrative foresight and constitutional discipline," the Court stated in its order. The Court also emphasized that while the SEC possesses broad powers under Article 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution of India to superintend elections, this power is "not unbridled" and must be exercised with "transparency, predictability, and promptitude". "The sanctity of the electoral calendar is foundational to the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Postponement of elections is an action that must be justified on valid grounds and should be taken at the earliest possible stage so as to avoid uncertainty and should preserve public confidence", the bench remarked. The Court also found faults with the SEC's decision regarding fragmentation of a 'ward' into segments which go to polls at different times, as it remarked thus: "If the election of one constituency (Division) in a ward is postponed, logic and fairness requires that the election of all constituencies (Divisions) in that 'ward' be postponed. Yet in the present case, the Commission has permitted elections in some constituencies to proceed even though other constituencies in the very same ward have been postponed. This inconsistency further reinforces the conclusion that the Commission did not apply a uniform or principled approach while restructuring the electoral programme". Further, the Court opined that at this advanced stage, the appropriate course was not to set aside the original or revised election programme, but to regulate the declaration of results so as to prevent undue influence upon the electorate in the postponed elections of local bodies. Before issuing the directions, the HC specifically noted that if results in the majority of Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads are declared earlier, voters in the postponed elections of loacal bodies may,...

Bombay High Court Condemns SEC's 'Last-Minute' Action To Postpone Local Body Polls; Defers Combined Results To December 21

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags