The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has raised important constitutional questions over the appointment of Administrators under Section 12(3-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation. Without deciding the issue finally, the Court observed that the matter requires deeper examination in light of an earlier Division Bench judgment that had declared a similar provision unconstitutional.
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by Sanjay Kumar Sharma, challenging the State's action under Section 12(3-A) of the 1947 Act. During the hearing, the Division Bench noted that an interim order passed by another Bench had referred to the earlier decision in Prem Lal Patel v. State of U.P., where Section 12(3-A) had reportedly been held ultra vires the Constitution.
The Bench examined the earlier ruling along with Article 243-E and other provisions of Part IX of the Constitution, which deal with the tenure of Panchayats and the conduct of local body elections.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla clarified that it was not expressing any final opinion. However, it pointed out that Article 243-E fixes the term of every Panchayat at five years and uses the expression "and no longer."
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The judges observed that a key issue requiring consideration is whether appointing an Administrator after the expiry of a Panchayat's tenure amounts to extending the Panchayat itself. They remarked,
"The Gram Pradhan, if he is appointed as Administrator after the expiry of its term does not continue to function as a Panchayat but he functions as an Administrator i.e. a substitute for the Panchayat."
The Court also questioned whether such appointments interfere with the powers of the State Election Commission under Article 243-K. It noted that while elections ought to be held before the expiry of a Panchayat's five-year term, the appointment of an Administrator does not, by itself, prevent the Election Commission from conducting elections.
The Bench further took note that the Supreme Court had disposed of the State's appeal against the Prem Lal Patel judgment as infructuous after the ordinance was replaced by legislation, leaving the legal questions open.
The High Court directed that the matter be listed with two connected PILs on 10 July 2026. It also ordered the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to join the next hearing through video conferencing and satisfy the Court on the issues raised. No final ruling was passed on the validity of Section 12(3-A).
Case Details:
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt., Lucknow & 3 Others
Case Number: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 593 of 2026
Judge: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
Decision Date: July 7, 2026
-300x169.webp)
