Elections To Panchayati Raj Institutions Can't Be Deferred Beyond Five-Year Term: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that statutory orders issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 can't override the authority of the State Election Commission or justify postponement of elections.

The Court remarked that elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions must be completed before the expiry of their five-year term, according to Article 243E of the Constitution.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “All limbs of the system involved in governance should act harmoniously… instead of deciding unilaterally causing tug-of-war between them, hampering the interest of larger public and violation of Constitutional mandate.”

The Court remarked that: “There is no reason for delaying with elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions… the election can easily be conducted on the basis of past delimitation.”

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions to conduct elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions before the expiry of their term on 31^st January, 2026.

They further contended that allowing to continue the existing Panchayati Raj Institutions beyond their term of 5 years, is unconstitutional and void ab initio.

In response, the State justified the delay by relying on an order issued by the Chairman of the State Disaster Management Authority citing damage caused by natural calamities during the 2025 monsoon season.

The Court reiterated that according to “Article 243E it is mandatory to complete elections before the expiry of the five-year term of Panchayats. The provision permitting reconstitution within six months after dissolution is only an exception and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the State”.

Further noting the reliance of the State on the Disaster Management Act, the Court remarked that a statutory provision and order passed cannot override the constitutional provisions as well as constitutional authorities like Election Commission.

The Court remarked that issues relating to delimitation, reservation, or pending litigation in a limited number of Panchayats cannot be used as a shield to justify State-wide delay in elections.

Thus, the Court concluded that Constitutional mandate cannot be undermined on the basis of administrative convenience.

Case Name: Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. v/s The State of Himachal Pradesh and others

Case No.: CWPIL No. 115 of 2025

Date of Decision: 09.01.2026

For the Petitioners: Sr. Adv Ankush Dass Sood, Adv Nandlal Thakur, Adv Mandeep Chandel, Adv Ajay Sipahiya, Adv Udit Shaurya Kaushik and Adv Tarun Mehta

For the Respondent: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra and Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 and 4.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent-State.

Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent-State Election Commission.

Click Here To Read/Download Order