The Himachal High Court refused to defer Panchayati Raj elections, directing polls for PRIs and urban local bodies before April 30, 2026. Disposing a PIL, the Division Bench ordered the State Election Commission to complete process by February 28.
HIMACHAL PRADESH: The Himachal High Court, denied the state government’s request to postpone the elections for Panchayati Raj bodies by six months, instead mandating that the elections for both panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) and urban local bodies (ULBs) be conducted before April 30, 2026.
Disposing of the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Mandeep Chandel, which challenged the election delay, a Division Bench consisting of Justice Vivek Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma instructed the State Election Commission and the government to complete the entire electoral process by February 28.
The five years term of the Panchayati Raj Institutions is set to expire on January 31, 2026, while the tenure of 50 urban local bodies will come to an end on January 18. The state comprises 3,577 Gram Panchayats, 90 Panchayat Samitis, 11 Zila Parishads, and 71 Urban Local Bodies overall.
According to Articles 243-E and 243-U of the Constitution, elections should ideally be completed before these terms expire.
The state government argued that “extensive damage to private and public property” during the recent monsoon, resulting in losses over Rs 10,000 crore statewide, rendered the administrative machinery incapable of conducting the elections.
In October, the government directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to suspend the election process “until things improve on the ground,” citing blocked rural roads and logistical challenges.
Without the intervention of the high court, the state risked an administrative vacuum, where elected pradhans and councillors would be replaced by government appointed bureaucrats. This scenario prompted strong criticism from the opposition, which claimed the government was “fearing the mandate” and trying to evade democratic decentralization.
The opposition has also criticized the postponement of the elections, alleging that the government is evading the polls and avoiding a face off in the elections.
However, the court was unyielding in refusing the request for a six month extension. Over three days of detailed hearings, the Bench highlighted the diminishing time frame for administration, owing to school board examinations in March that would occupy locations needed for polling booths, as well as the diversion of staff for the national census in May.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
