Gram Panchayat, Haripur Sandholi & others v. State of Himachal Pradesh

#6. This understanding is supported by a three-judge bench decision of this Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N., (2020) 6 SCC 548, para 14, where the Court was called upon to interpret Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, which mirror the aforementioned Article 329. Rejecting the contention that these provisions place a complete bar on judicial intervention, it waw noted that a constitutional Court can intervene for facilitating the elections or when a case for mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out. Using this, the Court directed delimitation to be conducted for nine new districts. Recently, a three-judge bench of this Court in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021) 8 SCC 401, para 67, affirmed the ratio of the above-cited decision while discussing principles on Article 329(a), and rejected the contention which sought to prove it as per incuriam. Therefore, while the Courts shall always be guided by the 7. settled principles regarding scope, ambit and limitations on the exercise of judicial review in delimitation matters, there is nothing that precludes them to check the validity of orders passed by Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution. If the order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to the constitutional values, the Court can grant the appropriate remedy to rectify the situation. In order to prove that any kind of judicial intervention is fully 8. prohibited, the respondents relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission and others, 1966 SCC Online SC 12. A closer examination of the aforementioned case, however, would show that the Court in that case restricted judicial intervention when the same would unnecessarily delay the election process. This is writ large from the following paragraph, where the Court explicated the reason behind adopting the hands-off approach: -5- “20. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before the date specified. Once the orders made by the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) were to be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court.” [emphasis supplied]

#9. Hence, the aforementioned judgement does not support the respondents’ contention regarding complete restriction on judicial review. A constitutional court can undertake the exercise of judicial review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage.

#10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, and para 3 of the impugned judgment—to the extent it held that there is a bar to challenge the order of delimitation of constituencies is set aside. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the High Court keeping in view the subsequent events. However, at present, no ground has been made out to interfere with the exercise of delimitation of constituencies and consequential reservation thereof, which was undertaken in the year 2006.”

#7. In present case, though Election Commission of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 17.11.2025 in exercise of powers vested in it under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution read with enabling Sections of Panchayati Raj Act, Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act and Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act read with first proviso of Clause 2(1) of Himachal Pradesh Panchayat and Municipal Model Code of Conduct, 2020, has enforced Clause 12(1) of Model Code of Conduct, 2020, throughout the State of Himachal -6- Pradesh, whereby structure, classification and area of Panchayats and Municipalities has been prohibited to be altered after issuance of the notification till the election process is over, however, from the notification dated 28.11.2025 issued by Department of Rural Development of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it is apparent that delimitation of Panchayats has not been finalized yet, and is, rather going on as vide this notification State of Himachal Pradesh has reorganized Development Block Bamson and Hamirpur by transferring/receiving Gram Panchayats in District Hamirpur, despite issuance of notification dated 17.11.2025 by the State Election Commission. It is apt to record that Development Block is a unit for which a Panchayat Samiti is constituted. A tug of war is going on between State Election Commission and the Government, as it is claimed by the Government that for enforcement of order dated

08.10.2025 issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh through Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Executive Committee, SDMA, H.P., in exercise of power conferred under Section 24(e) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, whereby it has been ordered that elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions will be held only after restoration of proper connectivity throughout the State, so that no inconvenience is caused to the general public as well as the polling personnel, and further no voter loses his right to vote because of road connectivity -7- issues. The State Election Commission cannot thrust upon its decision by issuing notification dated 17.11.2025.

#8. Ratio laid down in aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is also applicable to the present case. From the pronouncements referred supra and the status of delimitation and other ground realities referred supra, the objections with regard to prohibition under Article 243ZG of the Constitution, are not sustainable and accordingly rejected.

#9. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances Notification dated 23.12.2024, Annexures P-5 and P-6 are quashed and set-aside.

#10. Accordingly, respondents, especially, Secretary Urban Development is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 10.01.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing personal hearing to the petitioner before himself or through Director Urban Development, if desired so.

#11. Needless to say that personal hearing shall be provided one or two representatives of joint objectors. -8-

#12. Thereafter, the process shall be taken to its logical ends as expeditiously as possible as per law applicable.

#13. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge. 18th December, 2025 (Nisha)