The Supreme Court will examine whether the Disaster Management Act, 2005 can justify delaying Panchayat elections in Himachal Pradesh, despite constitutional mandates. The case arises after the state challenged a High Court order directing PRI polls by April 30.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is set to examine a crucial constitutional question “How long can the Disaster Management Act, 2005 be invoked to postpone Panchayat elections in Himachal Pradesh, when conducting these elections is a mandatory constitutional duty of the state?”.
This issue has reached the apex court after the Himachal Pradesh government challenged a High Court order directing that elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and urban local bodies be completed by April 30.
The legal standoff has intensified, with the state government insisting that elections cannot be held while the Disaster Management Act continues to be enforced. The Act was invoked following devastating monsoon-related disasters, including cloudbursts, flash floods, and landslides.
In 2025, Himachal Pradesh experienced its worst natural calamities, resulting in heavy loss of life. Subsequently, the entire state was declared a disaster-affected zone, and the Disaster Management Act has remained in force since then.
Advocate General Anoop Rattan confirmed that a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court and is expected to be listed for hearing soon. The petition has been submitted by the Principal Secretary (Urban Development), the Secretary (Panchayati Raj), and the Chief Secretary.
On 9th January, the Himachal High Court, denied the state government’s request to postpone the elections for Panchayati Raj bodies by six months, instead mandated 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.
The PIL also highlighted that the term of the PRIs ended on January 31 and that both the state government and the Election Commission were constitutionally bound to conduct elections within six months of the term’s expiry.
However, the Advocate General stated that after the High Court’s ruling, differing opinions arose regarding the finalisation of ward reservation rosters.
He emphasised that,
“It is very important to clarify the interpretation of the law.”
Reacting to the verdict, Chief Minister Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu described it as “arbitrary and lacking proper legal interpretation,” particularly since the Disaster Management Act, 2005 remains applicable in the state. He questioned whether the Disaster Act had become “infructuous” and said the government would pursue further legal remedies, including seeking clarity on how the Act should be interpreted in this situation.
In its Special Leave Petition, the state has raised two major objections. First, it contends that the High Court gave only four days to publish the Panchayat election reservation roster, which it considers unreasonable. The government pointed out that in 2021, another Bench had allowed three months to invite objections after the roster was issued.
Secondly, the state has argued that extensive damage to roads and public infrastructure due to natural disasters has made conducting elections impractical. It has also stated that the reorganisation and delimitation of certain Panchayats are still incomplete.
The High Court, however, ruled that the Disaster Management Act cannot hinder the functioning of constitutional bodies such as the State Election Commission. It directed the Panchayati Raj Department, the Urban Development Department, and the Election Commission to resolve their differences and coordinate their efforts under the Commission’s supervision.
Following the expiry of their tenure on January 31, the Himachal Pradesh government dissolved elected Panchayati Raj Institutions and appointed administrative committees to manage gram panchayats, panchayat samitis, and zila parishads until elections are held.
The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has strongly criticised the state’s decision to approach the Supreme Court.
Leader of the Opposition Jairam Thakur accused the government of deliberately delaying the democratic process, stating,
“This clearly proves that the Congress government does not want to hold elections and is afraid of facing the people.”