Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to specify a clear timeline for holding panchayat elections, observing that gram pradhans cannot continue as administrators. It sought a time-bound election plan to ensure constitutional compliance without further delay.
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to state a clear time frame for holding panchayat elections in the state.
The court made the direction while observing that gram pradhans (village heads) cannot be allowed to continue as administrators.
The order referenced an Uttar Pradesh government directive dated May 25, under which existing gram pradhans were appointed as administrators after their five-year term ended.
A separate request was also made for the court to instruct the State Election Commission to place on record a detailed, time-bound plan for completing the entire three-tier panchayat election process in compliance with Articles 243E and 243K of the Constitution.
The petitioners argued that the impugned government orders were passed under Section 12(3-A) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, a provision that had already been challenged in Pram Lal Patel vs. State of U.P. (2000). In that case, a division bench of the High Court held that the provision violated Articles 243E and 243K.
After calling upon the state authorities to file a counter affidavit, the court noted that Article 243E fixes the panchayat term at five years from the date of its first meeting and bars continuation beyond that.
Additional Chief Standing Counsel informed the court that a similar issue is being considered in a PIL filed by Ashish Kumar Singh.
The court also heard that the state government’s stand in that matter was that, because an OBC Commission had been set up to determine reservation-related aspects for the OBC category, panchayat elections could not be conducted until the commission completed its exercise.
The state’s argument was that the final decision on reservations would form part of the election process. However, the petitioners pointed out that, till date, the OBC Commission had not submitted its report.
In response, counsel for the State Election Commission stated that the electoral roll had already been published on June 10 and that elections could be held. The counsel added that the state government needed to provide the necessary logistics. Nevertheless, the court noted that the state government’s position had created an impediment to conducting the elections.
After hearing all sides, the court said,
“From the perusal of the impugned orders dated May 25, 2026 and May 26, 2026, it is evident that the said orders have been passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(3-A) of the Act, 1947, which has been held to be unconstitutional and therefore these orders are apparently nonest.”
The court further observed,
“In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the O.B.C. Commission as a party and considering the aforesaid, the orders impugned are nonest, the pradhans cannot be permitted to continue as an administrator,” the court added.
The court also stated that, as a final opportunity, the state government may file a detailed affidavit placing on record any OBC Commission report, if available, along with other relevant details, clearly specifying the time frame for conducting the elections.
The court warned that failing to do so, respondent No. 2 (Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj) would have to appear before the court on the next date of hearing.
The court further said that in the personal affidavit to be filed by respondent No. 2, an explanation should be provided about the circumstances under which the impugned orders were issued, especially when the provisions relied upon in those orders had already been held unconstitutional by a division bench.
The court added that otherwise it may be taken as a prima facie case of contempt for non-compliance with the division bench’s decision.
The case has been listed for further hearing on July 13.