The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a strong reminder of constitutional discipline, holding that elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) cannot be postponed beyond their fixed five-year term, except in the rarest circumstances. The ruling came in a public interest petition filed just weeks before the existing panchayats were set to complete their tenure on January 31, 2026.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma heard detailed arguments over several sittings, with the courtroom witnessing sharp exchanges on constitutional supremacy, disaster management powers, and election delays.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Dumpers, Excavators Not ‘Motor Vehicles’; Gujarat Road Tax Demand Quashed
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions to ensure that elections to PRIs across Himachal Pradesh are conducted before the expiry of their term, as mandated under Article 243-E of the Constitution.
They argued that any continuation of panchayats beyond five years would be unconstitutional. The petition highlighted that delimitation, electoral roll preparation, and other formalities had already been completed for the vast majority of local bodies, leaving no valid reason for delay.
On the other hand, the State relied on an order issued by the Chairman of the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) in October 2025, citing widespread damage caused by cloudbursts, floods, and landslides during the monsoon season. According to the State, damaged roads and safety concerns justified postponing elections.
Read also:- Preventive Detention Misused: Supreme Court Frees Telangana Woman Held in Ganja Cases
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that life in the State had largely returned to normal. Roads had been restored, public events were being held, and administrative machinery was functioning normally.
They relied on Supreme Court judgments to argue that natural calamities can justify election delays only in exceptional and continuing circumstances. “The Constitution does not permit convenience-based extensions,” the counsel submitted.
The State, however, maintained that the Disaster Management Act, being a special law, had overriding effect and that officials risked penal consequences if they disobeyed SDMA directions.
Court’s Observations
The Bench examined constitutional provisions, statutory laws, and binding precedents in detail. It noted that the five-year term of a Panchayat is mandatory and not merely directory.
Read also:- Supreme Court curbs private fraud complaints under Companies Act, partially quashes Telangana
“The rule is to complete elections before the expiry of the tenure. Reconstitution after expiry is only an exception and not a matter of right,” the Bench observed.
The Court rejected the argument that the Disaster Management Act could override constitutional provisions governing elections. It clarified that while disaster laws serve an important purpose, they cannot suspend constitutional institutions unless the situation truly makes elections impossible.
Importantly, the Bench found no material on record to show that conditions in Himachal Pradesh were so severe as to prevent the conduct of elections.
“The constitutional status of the State Election Commission cannot be diluted by administrative orders,” the Court said, adding that all authorities must act in harmony rather than engage in a “tug-of-war” that harms democratic governance.
The Court also addressed the State’s reliance on pending delimitation disputes and earlier judgments.
It noted that previous panchayat elections had been conducted on the basis of the 2011 Census and that the same data could be used again without legal difficulty. Delimitation challenges in a handful of areas, the Bench held, could not justify delaying elections across the entire State.
“The delay is not due to judicial orders but due to administrative inaction,” the Bench remarked during the hearing.
Read also:- J&K High Court Upholds Acquittal in Larnoo Rape Case, Says Trial Would Have Been an “Empty
Final Decision
Concluding the matter, the High Court held that Panchayati Raj Institutions cannot be allowed to continue beyond their constitutional tenure on the strength of executive orders. The Court ruled that the State Election Commission is competent to proceed with the election process and that constitutional mandates must prevail over statutory or administrative directions.
With this finding, the public interest petition was allowed, reaffirming that democratic governance at the grassroots level cannot be deferred without compelling and continuing reasons grounded in law.
Case Title: Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: CWPIL No.115 of 2025
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation
Decision Date: 09 January 2026
