Bombay High Court pulls up SEC for last-minute postponement of local body elections

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday criticized the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) for postponing local body elections just 72 hours before polling, observing that this reflected an ‘absence of oversight.’ [Vinod Chinchalkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S Venegavkar held that while the SEC did have power to postpone elections, this power was required to be used in exceptional cases.

“The Commission’s act of postponing elections at the last moment, after the entire machinery for pollinghas been mobilized, betrays an absence of foresight,” the Court recorded in its December 2 order.

It eventually held that though the elections in the local bodies may proceed as per the revised schedule, the vote count and declaration of results for the postponed elections and the elections held earlier in some areas under the original election schedule must happen uniformly.

To this end, the vote count and result declaration for elections held under the original election programme has been deferred until completion of polling and vote count in the postponed elections (to be held on December 20).

“The Commission shall thereafter declare all results on or after December 21, 2025, ensuring that no partial trends are released in the interim," the Court ordered.

The Bench also directed the SEC to issue guidelines for future elections to bring a uniform approach for the postponement of elections, to minimise last-minute disruption in elections. These guidelines are to be framed within 10 weeks.

The Bench was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the SEC’s decision to postpone elections of several Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads, and elections of certain constituencies within a ward to December 20.

The petitioners raised concerns that the staggered postponement of elections created uncertainty and affected how candidates may withdraw nominations if the same is challenged.

They argued that the original election programme notified on November 4 had already taken into account two situations: one where no appeals against rejection or acceptance of nomination are filed; and the second, where appeals are filed and decided.

The SEC had earlier fixed November 25 as the last date for withdrawal of nominations in both situations.

The petitioners argued that the SEC deliberately waited till 72 hours before the scheduled polling date to give its decisions on the postponement of elections in some bodies and wards.

They also argued that permitting elections to proceed in one constituency while postponing elections in another constituency in the same ward caused impermissible fragmentation in the constituency.

The SEC countered that they had postponed the elections to give candidates whose nominations were restored (post their appeal decisions) a fair chance to invoke their statutory right to withdraw their names, which would be rendered illusory otherwise.

On the issue of fragmentation of wards, the SEC emphasized that no prejudice is likely to be caused, as voters of the wards whose elections have been postponed will be entitled to cast their votes on December 20 and that orders postponing the polling were issued as soon as the above lacuna was noticed.

The Court, however, opined that the SEC could have devised a more prudent election program to avoid a clash between appellate timelines and nomination withdrawal dates.

It refrained from interfering with the postponement orders but condemned the SEC for issuing such orders in the eleventh hour.

“The postponement orders issued by SEC in respect of the concerned Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads are not quashed, but the SEC’s conduct in issuing them at the last minute is formally condemned as lacking in administrative foresight and constitutional responsibility”, the Court said.

Advocates Ram Shinde, VD Salunkhe, Ravindra Ade, NP Patil Jamalpurkar, Shubhangi More, Shrigopal Dodya and Sayyed Yaseen appeared for the petitioners.

Advocates Sachindra Shetye, Sharau Dhantare and Akshay Pansare appeared for the SEC.

Additional government pleaders SK Tambe appeared for the State.

[Read order]