Governments can't choose politically convenient time for elections, the Bombay High Court at Goa recently said while issued a strict timeline to complete delayed municipal elections across 11 municipal councils in the State [Nimesia Faleiro v. State of Goa & Ors.]

A division bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Hiten Venegavkar made the observation while upholding the validity of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026.

While the Court upheld the ordinance, it emphasised that fresh statutory exercises cannot be used as a ground to prolong the municipal polls.

“No government has a constitutional entitlement to choose a politically convenient date for an election whose periodicity is fixed by the Constitution. No Legislature can proceed on the assumption that enactment of a new electoral requirement automatically supplies additional constitutional time for its implementation,” the bench observed. 

The bench was dealing with a clutch of petitions challenging the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026. The ordinance altered ward delimitation and reservation rules. 

The petitions alleged that applying this new statutory framework after municipal tenures had already expired, violated the mandatory five-year deadline under Article 243U of the Constitution of India. 

The division bench upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance observing that the legislature has the power to amend the municipal laws. However, the bench held that the new statutory exercises cannot justify non-compliance with Article 243U. 

It directed authorities to complete all election stages within a compressed time bound schedule. 

The tenure of several municipal councils expired between March and May this year after which administrators were appointed to manage civic affairs.

The bench also ruled that the structural independence of the State Election Commission did not grant it authority to bypass valid statutes.  

“No State Election Commission can surrender the electoral calendar to the pace at which another authority chooses to act. Each must exercise its powers so that the Constitution, rather than institutional convenience, determines when democratic authority returns to the electorate," the bench held. 

It reiterated that the periodic renewal of local bodies cannot be turned into a moving variable.

"The Constitution does not require a choice between lawful elections and timely elections; it requires both," the Court said. 

It added that any departure from the constitutional deadline must remain confined to the irreducible period genuinely necessary for legal compliance.

To harmonise the ordinance requirements of ward delimitation and Other Backward Classes (OBC) empirical inquiry with Article 243U, the High Court directed all State authorities to act concurrently. 

It ordered that final delimitation notifications must be issued by September 9 followed by reservation notifications. The entire electoral exercise must be completed within the “shortest lawful period”

[Read Order]