The Allahabad High Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government over the continued delay in conducting Panchayat elections, observing that orders issued under a statutory provision already declared unconstitutional cannot be used to extend the tenure of Gram Pradhans as administrators. The Court directed the State to explain the delay and place a clear timeline for holding elections before it.
The order was passed by Justice Siddharth Nandan while hearing a writ petition challenging government orders dated May 25 and May 26, 2026.
Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged two government orders issued under Section 12(3-A) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It was argued that the very provision had already been declared unconstitutional by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Pram Lal Patel v. State of U.P. because it violated Articles 243E and 243K of the Constitution, which guarantee a fixed five-year term for Panchayats and vest control over Panchayat elections in the State Election Commission.
The petitioner also sought directions requiring the authorities to place a time-bound schedule for completing the three-tier Panchayat election process.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, the State submitted that elections had been delayed because the OBC Commission was yet to complete its exercise relating to reservation for Other Backward Classes. The Court noted that although the Commission had been constituted following directions of the Supreme Court, its report had still not been submitted.
The State Election Commission, however, informed the Court that the electoral rolls had already been published on June 10, 2026, and it was prepared to conduct the elections if the State Government provided the necessary logistical support.
Referring to the earlier Division Bench ruling, Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the impugned orders appeared to have been passed under a provision that had already been held unconstitutional.
"The orders impugned are apparently non est," the Court observed while noting that they were issued under a provision already struck down by the High Court.
The Court further remarked that Gram Pradhans could not be permitted to continue as administrators on the strength of such orders.
Court's Direction
While granting the State one final opportunity, the Court directed it to file a detailed affidavit placing on record the OBC Commission's report, if available, along with a clear timeframe within which Panchayat elections would be conducted. The Court also ordered Respondent No. 2 to personally explain the circumstances under which the impugned orders were issued despite the earlier declaration that the relevant statutory provision was unconstitutional.
The Court observed that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation could give rise to a prima facie case of contempt for disregarding the binding Division Bench judgment.
Decision
The High Court permitted the petitioner to implead the OBC Commission as a party to the proceedings. It held that the impugned orders were prima facie without legal effect and directed the State Government to file its affidavit with complete details regarding the OBC Commission's report and the election schedule.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 13, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Arvind Rathore v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case Number: Writ - C No. 23749 of 2026
Judge: Justice Siddharth Nandan
Decision Date: June 25, 2026
