As per case facts, petitioners approached the High Court challenging the reorganization, division, and bifurcation of Gram Panchayats and their delimitation. They argued that their villages were wrongly included in ...
2026:HHC:10132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3547 of 2026
a/w CWP Nos.3193, 3286, 3287,
3452, 3635, 3640, 3707, 3726, 3953,
4021, 4040, 4047 & of 2026
Date of decision: 31.03.2026
1.CWP No.3547 of 2026
Mahila Mandal of Village Umri & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents.
2.CWP No.3193 of 2026
Mahila Mandal of Village Ghurat & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents.
3.CWP No.3286 of 2026
Mahila Mandal Kakrohal. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
4.CWP No.3287 of 2026
Nirmal Singh. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents.
5.CWP No.3452 of 2026
Pawan Singh. ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
2026:HHC:10132
-2-
6.CWP No.3635 of 2026
Kartar Chand. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
7.CWP No.3640 of 2026
Satinder Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
8.CWP No.3707 of 2026
Shashi Kant & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
9.CWP No.3726 of 2026
Budhi Ram. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
10.CWP No.3953 of 2026
Rattan Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
11.CWP No.4021 of 2026
Suresh Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
12.CWP No.4040 of 2026
Kamla Dutt Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
2026:HHC:10132
-3-
13.CWP No.4047 of 2026
Gram Sudhar Sabha Jarora & Anr. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner :Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Mr. Aakash
Thakur, Mr. Varun Thakur, Mr. Prikshit
Rathore, Mr. Sangram Singh Chandel,
Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Mr. Janesh
Gupta, Mr. Kush Sharma, Mr. Tarun K.
Sharma, Mr. Ranbir Rathore, Mr. Ashok
Kumar Thakur, Mr. Narender Singh
Thakur, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma and Dr.
Rajesh Parmar, Advocates, for respective
petitioner(s) in respective petitions.
For the respondent(s) :Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
Advocate General and Mr. Swati Draik,
Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent-State in respective petition(s).
:Mr. Surender Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent-H.P. State Election
Commission in respective petition(s).
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
All these petitions for involvement of common question of
law and similar facts, are being decided together by this judgment.
2026:HHC:10132
-4-
CWP No. 3547 of 2026
2. Petitioners in this petition, by invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, have approached this Court against
reorganization/division/bifurcation of Gram Panchayat, Shingla,
District Shimla, into two Panchayats, namely Gram Panchayat Shingla
and Gram Panchayat Kalna, on the ground that their village Umri has
been wrongly included in Gram Panchayat Kalna, which will cause
inconvenience to the residents of Village Umri.
3. Apart from other grounds based on the factual matrix,
challenge has also been laid to notification creating or reorganizing
new Gram Panchayat and delimitation thereof on the ground that
action of the respondent-State is vitiated due to non-publication and
improper distribution of draft notification dated 10.03.2026. The time
period of three days provided for filing objections to the proposal of
delimitation, notified vide notification dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-
4), is unreasonable and violative of settled principles of justice. State
Election Commission, vide communication dated 05.03.2026
(Annexure P-8), had advised the respondents to refrain from creating
or reorganizing new Panchayats of Gram Sabha area after
commencement of delimitation process, in view of directions issued
by the Apex Court for completion of Panchayati Raj Elections before
2026:HHC:10132
-5-
31.05.2026, but despite that impugned notifications have been issued
which are creating legal complications in the delimitation process.
4. The petition has also been filed on the ground that
objections preferred on behalf of residents of Umri on 18.03.2026
(Annexure P-5) have not been decided by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. The respondents have proceeded further arbitrarily
on the basis of wrong assumptions and presumptions without taking
care of factual matrix, thereby causing inconvenience to the
petitioners and other residents of Village Umri.
5. As per reply filed to the petition, the Deputy
Commissioner, Shimla, received a resolution dated 10.12.2024,
passed unanimously by approximately 242 members of Gram
Panchayat, resolving for bifurcation and reorganization of Gram
Panchayat Shingla, on account of population of Gram Panchayat,
Shingla, exceeding 3200, extensive and scattered geographical
conditions, and certain villages being located at distance of nearly 10
kilometers from Panchayat Bhawan, causing administrative
inconvenience.
6. It is further case of the respondents that representations
were also received from Mahila Mandal, Nogli, dated 01.01.2025 and
Yuvak Mandal, Nogli, dated 27.12.2024, reiterating the demand for
bifurcation and constitution of new Panchayat.
2026:HHC:10132
-6-
7. It has been further case of the respondents that, in
continuation of statutory and administrative process, Deputy
Commissioner, Shimla, vide office order dated 15.05.2025, had
authorized the concerned Block Development Officers, on area-wise
basis, to undertake determination and delimitation of electoral
constituencies of Gram Sabhas as well as Panchayat Samitis in their
respective jurisdictions. In furtherance thereof, necessary directions
were issued to Block Development Officers to carry out delimitation
strictly in accordance with guidelines and particulars contained in
relevant communications. Revised delimitation notifications were duly
published and notified for information of general public. Copies of
notifications were furnished to District Panchayat Officer, Shimla,
Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Director Panchayati Raj, and
Secretary, State Election Department, Himachal Pradesh.
8. It has been pleaded on behalf of respondent/State that in
aforesaid background, vide notification dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure
P-2), Government of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary,
Panchayati Raj, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of
the HP Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, with approval of Governor of
Himachal Pradesh, notified the proposal for bifurcation, delimitation
and reorganization of certain Gram Panchayats in District Shimla. The
notification was published in e-Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh for
2026:HHC:10132
-7-
information of all concerned Gram Panchayats as well as general
public. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to examine the
matter, invite and adjudicate objections, if any, and to make
appropriate recommendations regarding proposed bifurcation,
delimitation and reorganization of Panchayats. Three days’ time was
given to file objections from the date of issuance of the notification.
Thus, the last date for submission of objections was 13.03.2026. Vide
communication dated 14.03.2026 (Annexure R-3/6), the Deputy
Commissioner submitted recommendations after duly inviting
objections and upon consideration and adjudication thereof.
Accordingly, the concerned Block Development Officer duly
completed the process on 16.03.2026, and the Government of
Himachal Pradesh duly notified reorganization of Gram Panchayat in
accordance with law.
9. From the communication dated 14.03.2026 (Annexure R-
3/3), sent from office of the Deputy Commissioner to all Block
Development Officers of District Shimla, it is apparent that Block
Development Officers were informed that vide notification dated
14.03.2026, issued by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj, to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh, certain Gram Sabhas have been
divided/bifurcated and new Gram Sabhas have been established in
different Development Blocks of Shimla. Accordingly, in view of
2026:HHC:10132
-8-
authorization extended to concerned Block Development Officers,
vide communication dated 15.05.2025, for delimitation of Gram
Sabhas/territorial constituencies (Wards), Block Development Officer
were directed to complete delimitation process as under:-
Notification of Delimitation proposalOn or before 15.03.2026
Objection period (3 days) Upto 18.03.2026
Final publication of delimitation within
two days
On or before 20.03.2026
10. In furtherance of aforesaid directions, Block Development
Officer, Rampur, issued notification dated 16.03.2026 regarding
proposal for delimitation of various Gram Panchayats, including Gram
Panchayat Shingla and Gram Panchayat Kalna, by inviting objections
within three days from the date of the notification. On 18.03.2026,
residents of Umri submitted objections. On 20.03.2026, final
notification of delimitation was issued.
11. Similarly, in CWP No. 3193 of 2026, proposal for
creation/re-organization/ bifurcation was issued on 28.2.2026 by
granting 3 days time upto 2
nd
March, 2026 for filing objections, and
after consideration on 3
rd
March, 2026, recommendation was made on
5
th
March, 2026, and Secretary Panchayati Raj issued final notification
on 7
th
March, 2026. Learned Advocate General has submitted that
though final notification are not with him, however, he has been
instructed to communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been
2026:HHC:10132
-9-
notified on or before 20.03.2026. However, it is apparent that after 7
th
March, 2026, there was no sufficient time to complete the process of
delimitation by adhering to time frame provided in Election Rules.
12. In CWP No. 3286 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 28
th
February, 2026 by
granting 3 days time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 7
th
March, 2026. Learned Advocate General has submitted that though
final notification are not with him, however, he has been instructed to
communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been notified on or
before 20.03.2026. However, it is apparent that after 7
th
March, 2026,
there was no sufficient time to complete the process of delimitation by
adhering to time frame provided in Election Rules.
13. In CWP No. 3287 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 28
th
February, 2026 by
granting 3 days time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 7
th
March, 2026. Learned Advocate General has submitted that though
final notification are not with him, however, he has been instructed to
communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been notified on or
before 20.03.2026. However, it is apparent that after 7
th
March, 2026,
there was no sufficient time to complete the process of delimitation by
adhering to time frame provided in Election Rules.
14. In CWP No. 3452 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
2026:HHC:10132
-10-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 28.2.2026 by granting 3 days
time for filing objections, but notification was forwarded to Gram
Panchayat on 2
nd
March, 2026, i.e. after expiry of time provided for
filing objections, and thereafter, on 7
th
March, 2026 Secretary
Panchayati Raj issued final notification. Learned Advocate General
has submitted that though final notification are not with him, however,
he has been instructed to communicate that in all cases final
delimitation has been notified on or before 20.03.2026. However, it is
apparent that after 7
th
March, 2026, there was no sufficient time to
complete the process of delimitation by adhering to time frame
provided in Election Rules.
15. In CWP No. 3635 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 18
th
December, 2024 by
granting 7 days time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 6
th
March, 2026 without adjudication of objections. Learned Advocate
General has submitted that though final notification are not with him,
however, he has been instructed to communicate that in all cases final
delimitation has been notified on or before 20.03.2026. However, it is
apparent that after 6
th
March, 2026, there was no sufficient time to
complete the process of delimitation by adhering to time frame
provided in Election Rules.
16. In CWP No. 3640 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
2026:HHC:10132
-11-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 7
th
March, 2026 by granting 3
days time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 12
th
March,
2026. Learned Advocate General has submitted that though final
notification are not with him, however, he has been instructed to
communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been notified on or
before 20.03.2026. However, it is apparent that after 12
th
March, 2026,
there was no sufficient time to complete the process of delimitation by
adhering to time frame provided in Election Rules.
17. In CWP No. 3707 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 28
th
February, 2026, by
granting 3 days time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 9
th
March, 2026. Learned Advocate General has submitted that though
final notification are not with him, however, he has been instructed to
communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been notified on or
before 20.03.2026. However, it is apparent that after 9
th
March, 2026,
there was no sufficient time to complete the process of delimitation by
adhering to time frame provided in Election Rules.
18. In CWP No. 3726 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 28
th
February, 2026, by
granting 3 days time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 7
th
March, 2026. Learned Advocate General has submitted that though
final notification are not with him, however, he has been instructed to
2026:HHC:10132
-12-
communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been notified on or
before 20.03.2026. However, it is apparent that after 7
th
March, 2026,
there was no sufficient time to complete the process of delimitation by
adhering to time frame provided in Election Rules.
19. In CWP No. 3953 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was notified on 13
th
February, 2026 by
granting 5 days time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 26
th
February, 2026. Learned Advocate General has submitted that
though final notification are not with him, however, he has been
instructed to communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been
notified on or before 20.03.2026. However, it is apparent that after
21
st
February, 2026, there was no sufficient time to complete the
process of delimitation by adhering to time frame provided in Election
Rules.
20. In CWP No.4021 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 28.2.2026 by granting 3 days
time for filing objections, and it was finalized on 7
th
March, 2026,
which was modified by issuing corrigendum on 12.3.2026. Learned
Advocate General has submitted that though final notification are not
with him, however, he has been instructed to communicate that in all
cases final delimitation has been notified on or before 20.03.2026.
However, it is apparent that after 12
th
March, 2026, there was no
2026:HHC:10132
-13-
sufficient time to complete the process of delimitation by adhering to
time frame provided in Election Rules.
21. In CWP No. 4040 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 19
th
May, 2025, by granting
seven days’ time for filing objections and it was finalized on 18
th
December, 2025. Learned Advocate General has submitted that
though final notification are not with him, however, he has been
instructed to communicate that in all cases final delimitation has been
notified on or before 20.03.2026.
22. In CWP No. 4047 of 2026, proposal for creation/re-
organization/ bifurcation was issued on 10
th
March, 2026, by granting
3 days time for filing objections, which was recommended on 13
th
March, 2026, and it was finalized on 14
th
March, 2026. Learned
Advocate General has submitted that though final notification are not
with him, however, he has been instructed to communicate that in all
cases final delimitation has been notified on or before 20.03.2026.
However, it is apparent that after 14
th
March, 2026, there was no
sufficient time to complete the process of delimitation by adhering to
time frame provided in Election Rules.
23. Learned Advocate General has submitted that vide
judgment dated 9.1.2026 passed in CWPIL No. 115 of 2025, the Court
had permitted the respondents-State to undertake re-creation of
2026:HHC:10132
-14-
Panchayati Raj Institutions and urban local bodies by completing the
process by respondents-State Department by 28
th
February, 2026 and
thereafter to conduct elections within eight weeks thereafter. He has
further submitted that aforesaid direction was modified by the Apex
Court by permitting the respondents-State to complete pending
process by 31
st
March, 2026 instead of 28
th
February, 2026 and
thereafter to conduct elections within eight weeks positively by 31
st
May, 2026.
24. Learned Advocate General has submitted that Division
Bench of this High Court in CWP No.13810 of 2025, Devinder Singh
Negi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, had directed to
undertake delimitation process afresh, and further that State had
relied upon judgment dated 6.1.2021 passed by co-ordinate Division
Bench in CWP No. 5987 of 2020, titled as Manish Dharmaik Vs.
State of H.P., whereby it was directed that notification reserving
offices of Gram Panchayats in State for various categories to
elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions required to be published and
placed in public domain on the website of State Election Commission
at least three months prior to the commencement of election process.
Further that respondents-State had submitted that tentative time
schedule for delimitation and reservation in response to CWPIL No.
115 of 2025, has been re-produced by the Division Bench in the said
judgment in para 37, which reads as under:-
2026:HHC:10132
-15-
Activity Date
Letter to DCs for
delimitation of
constituencies/wards of
PRIs
20.12.2025
Period required for DCs for
publication of delimitation
proposals
Approximately upto
10.01.2026
Period for filing objections7 days from date of
publication – Approximately
upto 17.01.2026
Period required to inquire
and consider objections by
DCs
7 days after the last date of
inviting objections –
24.01.2026
For filing appeal before Div.
Comm.
10 days upto 04.02.2026
Period to hear and decide
the Appeal by Divisional
Commissioner
15 days
19.02.2026
Final publication 5 days
24.02.2026
Time period required for
reservation
30 days by 24.03.2026
25. With aforesaid submission, it has been submitted by
learned Advocate General that after passing of judgment by the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 1607 of 2026, dated 13.2.2026, the State
was competent and entitled to complete the pending process by 31
st
March, 2026 and, therefore, respondents-State had taken further
action in the proposals pending since the year 2024 for bifurcation/re-
origination of Gram Panchayats, as there was a direction to complete
2026:HHC:10132
-16-
the pending process by 31.3.2026. It has been submitted that in view
of Devinder Singh Negi’s case also, respondents had to take steps
for re-delimitation of Zila Parishads for conducting elections, otherwise
it would not have been possible to conduct the elections.
26. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that
in view of mandate of the Apex Court, the entire process was to be
completed by 31
st
March, 2026 and, therefore, respondents were
constrained to squeeze the time of 7 days for inviting objections
against proposal of delimitation by 3 days and accordingly after re-
origination of Panchayats instead of 7 days, 3 days time was given
and thereafter final delimitation notice was issued immediately after
expiry of finalization of objections after consideration of objections, but
without waiting for limitation period of 10 days, available for filing
appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the decision, on
objections, taken by the Deputy Commissioner. It has been submitted
that as final notification of delimitation has not been assailed and
present prayer will not serve the purpose and, therefore, petitions
deserve to be dismissed.
27. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that
there is a difference between glaring illegal Act and statutory
irregularity and in present case there is no glaring illegal act
committed by the respondents and, therefore, for assailing the
statutory irregularity petitioners have to establish prejudice caused to
2026:HHC:10132
-17-
them on account of delimitation carried out after curtailing 7 days
period to 3 days and without waiting for expiry of limitation period for
filing appeal before Divisional Commissioner. Further that no genuine
case has been made out in the objections preferred by the petitioners
in their respective petitions and, therefore, challenge to the action of
State by pointing out statutory irregularity, is not sustainable.
28. Learned Advocate General has submitted that in similar
facts and circumstances, judgment passed by the Apex Court in State
of Goa and Another Vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh and Another,
reported in (2021) 8 SCC 401, is also relevant to be referred and he
has referred following paras thereof:-
“2. The present batch of civil appeals raise important
questions on the provisions contained in Part IX-A of the
Constitution of India. The Goa State Election Commission (“SEC”)
decided to postpone the elections to 11 Municipal Councils whose
terms were to expire on 4.11.2020. The elections were scheduled
to be held on 18.10.2020, which were postponed to 18.1.2021 in
view of the COVID-19 pandemic situation in the State of Goa.
3. On 3.11.2020, the Governor of Goa appointed the Law
Secretary of the Government of Goa, a member of the IAS, as
State Election Commissioner which duties were to be in addition to
his duties as Law Secretary. By an order dated 5.11.2020,
Municipal Administrators were appointed by the Department of
Urban Development (Municipal Administration) for all these
municipal councils whose terms had expired. By a notification
dated 14.1.2021, the Goa SEC further postponed the election for a
period of three months i.e., till April, 2021 or the election date which
may be determined by the Commission.
2026:HHC:10132
-18-
4. On 4.2.2021, the State of Goa published an amendment
to Section 10(1) of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (“the Goa
Municipalities Act”) in the official gazette, by which the time frame
for issuance of a notification for reservation of wards was stated as
being “at least seven days” before the notification for schedule of
dates and events of the elections. On the same day, the Director of
Municipal Administration issued an order for reservation of wards
for 11 municipal councils within the State of Goa. We are informed
by the SEC that on 5.2.2021, electoral rolls were prepared and
returning officers appointed for an ensuing election.
5. Meanwhile, being aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2021,
9 writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa
between 9.2.2021 and 12.2.2021 challenging the aforesaid order
on various grounds. By a separate writ petition, being W.P. No. 92
of 2021, the amendment to Section 10(1) also came to be
challenged. This matter is pending hearing and final disposal
before the High Court, and has been segregated from the other
writ petitions which were disposed of by the High Court.
6. On 15.2.2021, the writ petitions came up for hearing and
the High Court was pleased to list the matters for final disposal on
22.2.2021. It is stated by Shri Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of first respondent in civil appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. 3937 of 2021, that this was done with the
understanding between the parties that the election schedule
would not be notified till the disposal of the writ petitions.
…. …… …..
68. A conspectus of the aforesaid judgments in the context of
municipal elections would yield the following results:
68.1 Under Article 243-ZG(b), no election to any municipality
can be called in question except by an election petition presented
to a Tribunal as is provided by or under any law made by the
legislature of a State. This would mean that from the date of
notification of the election till the date of the declaration of result a
judicial hands-off is mandated by the non obstante clause
contained in Article 243-ZG debarring the writ court under Articles
226 and 227 from interfering once the election process has
2026:HHC:10132
-19-
begun until it is over. The constitutional bar operates only during
this period. It is therefore a matter of discretion exercisable by a
writ court as to whether an interference is called for when the
electoral process is “imminent” i.e, the notification for elections is
yet to be announced.
68.2 If, however, the assistance of a writ court is required in
subserving the progress of the election and facilitating its
completion, the writ court may issue orders provided that the
election process, once begun, cannot be postponed or protracted
in any manner.
68.3. The non obstante clause contained in Article 243-
ZG does not operate as a bar after the election tribunal decides an
election dispute before it. Thus, the jurisdiction of the High Courts
under Articles 226 and 227 and that of the Supreme Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not affected as the non
obstante clause in Article 243-ZG operates only during the process
of election.
68.4 Under Article 243-ZA(1), the SEC is in overall charge of
the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of
electoral rolls, and the conduct of all municipal elections. If there is
a constitutional or statutory infraction by any authority including the
State Government either before or during the election process,
the SEC by virtue of its power under Article 243-ZA(1) can set right
such infraction. For this purpose, it can direct the State
Government or other authority to follow the Constitution or
legislative enactment or direct such authority to correct an order
which infracts the constitutional or statutory mandate. For this
purpose, it can also approach a writ court to issue necessary
directions in this behalf. It is entirely upto the SEC to set the
election process in motion or, in cases where a constitutional or
statutory provision is not followed or infracted, to postpone the
election process until such illegal action is remedied. This the SEC
will do taking into account the constitutional mandate of holding
elections before the term of a municipality or municipal council is
over. In extraordinary cases, the SEC may conduct elections after
such term is over, only for good reason.
2026:HHC:10132
-20-
68.5 Judicial review of a State Election Commission’s order is
available on grounds of review of administrative orders. Here
again, the writ court must adopt a hands-off policy while the
election process is on and interfere either before the process
commences or after such process is completed unless interfering
with such order subserves and facilitates the progress of the
election.
68.6 Article 243-ZA(2) makes it clear that the law made by the
legislature of a State, making provision with respect to matters
relating to or in connection with elections to municipalities, is
subject to the provisions of the Constitution, and in
particular Article 243-T, which deals with reservation of seats.
68.7 The bar contained in Article 243-ZG(a) mandates that
there be a judicial hands-off of the writ court or any court in
questioning the validity of any law relating to delimitation of
constituency or allotment of seats to such constituency made or
purporting to be made under Article 243ZA. This is by virtue of the
non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG. The statutory
provisions dealing with delimitation and allotment of seats cannot
therefore be questioned in any court. However, orders made under
such statutory provisions can be questioned in courts provided the
concerned statute does not give such orders the status of a
statutory provision.
68.8 Any challenge to orders relating to delimitation or
allotment of seats including preparation of electoral rolls, not being
part of the election process as delineated above, can also be
challenged in the manner provided by the statutory provisions
dealing with delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats to
such constituencies.
68.9 The constitutional bar of Article 243-ZG(a) applies only to
courts and not the State Election Commission, which is to
supervise, direct and control preparation of electoral rolls and
conduct elections to municipalities.
68.10The result of this position is that it is the duty of the SEC
to countermand illegal orders made by any authority including the
State Government which delimit constituencies or allot seats to
2026:HHC:10132
-21-
such constituencies, as is provided in proposition 68.4 above. This
may be done by the SEC either before or during the electoral
process, bearing in mind its constitutional duty as delineated in the
said proposition.”
29. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that
in present case findings given in para 68.4 are applicable and it is the
State Election Commission to take call with respect to process being
undertaken by respondents-State and to set right any infraction if
found in action of the State and further that any infringement or rules
or provisions in delimitation or re-organization in the Panchayats can
be a good ground for challenging the elected office bearer by
defeated candidate. According to him, at this stage respondents
should be permitted to continue to proceed further by keeping these
petitions pending to be adjudicated later on for deciding the question
of law in future, but allowing the respondent-State to determine Roster
on the basis of impugned notification and delimitation carried out by
the respondent-State in question.
30. Learned counsel for Election Commission submits that in
view of order passed by the Supreme Court to complete pending
process by 31.3.2026, any delay in determining and notifying the
roster may call action against the defaulters of contempt of the order
passed by the Apex court, as it has been observed by the Apex Court
that no application for extension of time shall be entertained.
31. Learned Advocate General has submitted that this bar
2026:HHC:10132
-22-
for extension of time is related to conducting the elections positively
by 31
st
May, 2026 and, as because of pending litigation, exercise for
determination the entire roster could not be undertaken, it would be
permissible for the State to pray and for this Court to allow the
respondents-State to complete the process of determining the roster
within 6-7 days after passing of appropriate order in these petitions
pending in this Court regarding re-organization/ organization and
delimitation of Gram Panchayats.
32. Learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel
for the Election Commission, under instructions, have submitted that
permitting the respondents-State to determine the roster within 6-7
days after 31
st
March, 2026, would not cause delay in completing the
process of conducing elections by 31
st
May, 2026, as according to
them after fresh delimitation entire exercise has been undertaken, but
has not been notified for pendency of litigation and further even if re-
organization and delimitation carried out by issuing draft
notifications/proposals in the last week of February, 2026 and
thereafter, interference in these petitions is held to be illegal, then also
reservation roster can be determined and notified on the basis of
Gram Panchayats existing prior to impugned creation, bifurcation or
reorganization, as in those Panchayats everything else has been
done in consonance with the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act and
Rules framed thereunder including Election Rules and the said
2026:HHC:10132
-23-
exercise can be completed within 6-7 days, enabling the respondents
to complete the election process by 31
st
May, 2026.
33. It is apt to record that vide judgment dated 09.01.2026
passed in CWPIL No.115 of 2025 (Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. vs.
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), following direction was
passed by Division Bench of this High Court:-
“71.In view of above discussion, State Election Commission,
Panchayati Raj Department, Urban Development Department and
SDMA, are directed sit together, decide together and march
together, harmoniously to act in consonance with constitutional
mandate for reconstitution of Panchayati Raj Institutions and ULBs
by completing all process by the respondent-State’s Departments
by 28.02.2026 and thereafter, conduct of elections within eight
weeks thereafter, i.e. or or before 30.04.2026. In this exercise, State
Election Commission, through State Election Commissioner, shall
perform duty of elder brother and all others shall act in aid of
Election Commission to conduct the elections in compliance of
aforesaid directions and in consonance with Constitutional
mandate.”
34. The aforesaid judgment was assailed by State of
Himachal Pradesh before Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1607 of
2026, which was disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated
13.02.2026 with following observations and modifications: -
“1.Leave granted.
2. We have heard Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel on behalf
of the appellants and Shri Maninder Singh & Shri Ankush Dass
Sood, learned senior counsel, representing the writ petitioners
before the High Court.
3. The direction issued by the High Court that elections of the
Urban Local Bodies/Municipal Corporations/Nagar Panchayats are
required to be held after expiry of their term of the elected bodies, in
terms of the constitutional mandate, is the correct position of law,
and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The High
Court was equally right in observing that the pendency of the
2026:HHC:10132
-24-
delimitation exercise is also not a valid ground to delay or stall the
elections of local bodies and Panchayats.
4. However, having regard to the logistical difficulties
experienced by the State Government, we modify the schedule of
election slightly and further modify paragraph 71 of the impugned
judgment in the following terms:
(i)The State Election Commission, Panchayati Raj
Department, Urban Development Department and SDMA,
altogether will finalise and shall complete the pending processes by
31.03.2026 (instead of 28.02.2026) and thereafter the elections
shall be conducted within 8 weeks, i.e., positively by 31.05.2026. No
application for extension of time shall be entertained.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.”
35. It is apt to record that Division Bench of this High Court
vide judgment dated 6
th
January, 2021 passed in CWP No. 5987 of
2020 along with connected matters titled Manish Dharmaik vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh and others has directed as under:-
“Before parting with the judgment, having taken note of
methodology adopted by the State in preparing, implementing and
rotating the election reservation roster for reservation of offices/Gram
Panchayats in elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State
and various contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
we hereby issue following directions to the State to be followed in
future:-
(i) In cases of re-organization/separation/creation of Gram
Panchayats/Blocks etc., reservation of offices therein should be
allocated afresh based upon the ‘changed’ population structure in
accordance with relevant provisions of applicable Statute and the
Rules. However, while applying the Election Reservation Roster,
proper care should be taken so that reservation roster gets rotated to
the maximum extent possible;
(ii)Grievances of the petitioners with respect to application and rotation
of election reservation roster over changed territories of Gram
Panchayats/Blocks, howsoever, genuine these might be, cannot be
examined at this stage when election process is already underway, in
view of bar imposed by Article 243-O of Constitution of India. In such
circumstances, we direct the respondent-State to ensure that, in future,
the notification reserving offices in the Gram Panchayats/Blocks in the
State for various categories in elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions
is published and placed in public domain on the website of State
2026:HHC:10132
-25-
Election Commission at least three months prior to the commencement
of election process to enable timely adjudication of disputes pertaining
to application/rotation of election reservation roster. All consequent
steps in furtherance of same be also taken accordingly.”
36. In these petitions re-organization, bifurcation or creation
of Panchayats as well as Local Self Bodies, after imposition of Clause
12.1 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayats and Municipalities Model
Code of Conduct, 2020 by State Election Commission of Himachal
Pradesh (in short ‘HP Model Code of Conduct’), has also been
assailed by the petitioners being arbitrary, in violation of Clause 12.1
of HP Model Code of Conduct invoked by State Election Commission
on 17.11.2025 and unconstitutional being violative of mandate of the
Constitution of India.
37. Undisputably in State of Himachal Pradesh, the term of
Panchayati Raj Institutions was to expire in January 2026 and term of
some Urban Local Bodies (‘ULBs’), Municipal Corporations, Nagar
Panchayats etc. was to expire in April, 2026. In CWPIL No.115 of
2025 (Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors.) vide judgment dated 09.01.2026, this Court had
issued direction to the respondent-State and State Election
Commission to complete the pending process on behalf of the State
by 28.02.2026 and to conduct elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions
and local self-bodies on or before 30.04.2026.
2026:HHC:10132
-26-
38. The aforesaid judgment was assailed by the State before
Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No.5451 of 2026 (Civil Appeal No.1607
of 2026), which was disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated
13.02.2026 with observation that the judgment passed by this Court
did not warrant any interference by the Apex Court, however, by
extending the time to complete the pending processes by 31.03.2026
(instead of 28.02.2026) and to conduct elections thereafter within
eight weeks, i.e. positively by 31.05.2026 with rider that no application
for extension of time shall be entertained.
39. It is also undisputed that State Election Commission had
issued communication dated 17.11.2025 in exercise of powers vested
in it under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution read with
enabling Sections of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in
short ‘PR Act’), Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act and Himachal
Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act read with 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 Pradesh, whereby structure, classification, and
area of Panchayats and Municipalities, has been prohibited to be
altered after issuance of the said notification till the election process is
over.
2026:HHC:10132
-27-
40. Despite issuance of aforesaid communication dated
17.11.2025, Department of Rural Development of the Government of
Himachal Pradesh had undertaken process of delimitation of
Panchayats issuing notification dated 28.11.2025.
41. CWP No.13810 of 2025 (Devinder Singh Negi vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) was filed in June/July 2025 assailing the
orders of Deputy Commissioner as well as Divisional Commissioner
and quashing of amendment carried out under Rule 9(2) of Himachal
Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (in short ‘H.P.
Election Rules’). The said petition was decided on 05.12.2025,
whereby first amendment carried out in Rule 9(2) of H.P. Election
Rules and consequential notifications regarding delimitation of
territorial constituencies in Zila Parishad, Shimla, dated 17.05.2025
and 31.05.2025, were quashed and set aside.
42. In the meanwhile, CWPIL No.115 of 2025 (Dikken Kumar
Thakur & Anr. vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) was
preferred seeking mandamus to respondent-State to ensure conduct
of election before expiry of term of Panchayats. The said writ petition
was allowed vide judgment dated 09.01.2026 and respondents were
directed to complete the election process by 30.04.2026. As recorded
supra, the said judgment was assailed in the Apex Court, where the
date to complete the process of election was finalised as 31.03.2026
2026:HHC:10132
-28-
(instead of 28.02.2026) and conduct the election positively by
31.05.2026.
43. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer
Article 243K of the Constitution, which reads as under:-
“243K. Elections to the Panchayats.—(1) The superintendence,
direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the
conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State
Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner
to be appointed by the Governor.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature
of a State, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State
Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule
determine:
Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be
removed from his office except in like manner and on the like
grounds as a Judge of a High Court and the conditions of service of
the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his
disadvantage after his appointment.
(3)The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the
State Election Commission, make available to the State Election
Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of
the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by clause
(1).
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature
of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters
relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats.”
44. The State Election Commission has been established in
terms of Section 160 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act,
1994 (in short ‘PR Act’), following the constitutional mandate in this
regard, which reads as under:-
“160. State Election Commission.- (1) There shall be a State
Election Commission constituted by the Governor for
superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of
electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the Panchayat
bodies in the State under this Act and the rules made thereunder.
The Commission shall consist of a State Election Commissioner to
be appointed by the Governor.
2026:HHC:10132
-29-
(2)The salary and allowances payable to, tenure of office and
conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall be
such as the Governor may by rule determine:
Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be
removed from his office except in the like manner and on the like
grounds as a judge of the High Court and the conditions of service
of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his
disadvantage after his appointment.
(3)The Governor shall, when so requested by the State
Election Commissioner make available to him such staff as may be
necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on him under
this Act.”
45. The State Election Commission has issued Himachal
Pradesh Panchayats and Municipalities Model Code of Conduct,
2020, for conducting Municipal and Panchayat Elections, Clause 2
whereof provides commencement of Model Code of Conduct and
Clause 12.1 deals with organizational status quo, which read as
under:-
“2. Commencement.- 2.1 This Code shall, unless otherwise
directed by the Commission, come in to force and be applicable on
and from the date on which the Commission publishes the election
programme;
Provided that the Commission may enforce different
provisions of this code on different dates.
Provided further that the Commission may enforce this code
in different parts of the State on different dates.
2.2The Code or any of its paragraphs which have become
effective and applicable shall continue to be effective and applicable
till the election process is completed
xx xx xx
12. Organizational Status Quo:
12.1 "The structural, classification or area of the Panchayats and
Municipalities shall not be altered after the issue of Notification by
the State Election Commission enforcing this clause, till the election
process is over".”
2026:HHC:10132
-30-
46. Despite invoking Clause 12.1 of Model Code of Conduct
on 17.11.2025, respondent-State, apart from fresh delimitation in
compliance of the judgments passed by the Court, also continued to
fresh creation, bifurcation or reorganisation of Panchayats. In this
regard, notification re-organising Development Blocks Barsar, District
Hamirpur was issued on 28.11.2025.
47. Not only before, but also after passing of judgment by the
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1607 of 2026, the respondent-State
issued various notifications for creation, re-organization or bifurcation
of Gram Panchayats and Nagar Panchayats, including notifications
dated 18.12.2025 for bifurcation and creation of 6 Gram Panchayats
in District Hamirpur (in CWP No.3635 of 2026), 18.02.2026 for
bifurcation and creation of 9 Gram Panchayats in District Shimla (in
CWP No.3193 of 2026), 18.02.2026 for bifurcation and creation of 13
Gram Panchayats in District Solan (CWP No.3640 of 2026),
28.02.2026 for bifurcation and creation of 5 Gram Panchayats in
District Una (in CWP No.3452 of 2026), 10.03.2025 for bifurcation and
creation of 22 Gram Panchayats in District Shimla (in CWP No.3547
of 2026). Vide notification dated 18.12.2025, 7 days’ time was given
for filing objections, in all other notifications only 3 days’ time was
given to file objections, and thereafter, vide notifications dated
06.03.2025 (CWP No.3635 of 2026), 05.03.2026 (CWP No.3193 of
2026:HHC:10132
-31-
2026), 12.03.2026 (CWP No.3640 of 2026), 07.03.2026 (CWP
No.3452 of 2026) and 14.03.2026 (CWP No.3547 of 2026) either new
Gram Panchayats were created or recommended for creation or
bifurcation.
48. It is also apt to record that State Election Commission
has also issued communication dated 05.03.2026, reiterating that
Commission has enforced Clause 12.1 of Mode Code of Conduct vide
communication dated 17.11.2025 specifically freezing the boundaries
of Panchayati Raj Institutions, but despite that Department has issued
notification for creation of certain new Gram Panchayats in various
Districts, including Shimla, Solan and Hamirpur on 26/28.02.2026,
which were not in existence at the time of issuance of draft
delimitation of Zila Parishads Wards, and thereafter, notification for
creation of almost 80 new Gram Sabhas have been issued, whereas
Department had sought relaxation in Mode Code of Conduct for
proposal of creation of 31 Gram Sabhas only, but thereafter several
new Gram Sabhas circles have been notified by Department without
seeking any relaxation from the Commission, including 80 Gram
Sabhas notified vide notification dated 28.02.2026. Communication
dated 05.03.2026 reads as under:-
“STATE ELECTION COMMISSION HIMACHAL PRADESH
Armsdale Shimla -171002
Tel, 0177-2620132,2620139,2620154.
E-mall-secysec-hp@nic.in.
No.SEC(F)1-45/2024-6730 Shimla-2 05 March,2026
2026:HHC:10132
-32-
To
The Secretary (Panchayati Raj) to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh,
Shimla-2.
Subject:Conduct of General Election to Panchayati Raj Institutions
in pursuance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
Sir,
As you are aware, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while
disposing of SLP No. 5451/2026 on dated 13
th
February, 2026, has
passed an order that State Election Commission, Panchayati Raj
Department, Urban Development Department and SDMA together
will finalize and shall complete the pending all process as by
31.03.2026 so that the election can be completed before 31
st
May,
2026.
Accordingly, the Department initially issued a delimitation
programme whereby it was directed that delimitation of Panchayats
shall be completed by 20
th
March, 2026 and final reservation order
shall be issued on or before 31
st
March, 2026.
But the department has now issued a notification for creation
of certain new Panchayats in District Shimla, Solan and Hamirpur
on 26
th
February, 2026, which are not in draft delimitation of Zila
Parishad wards. Thereafter, the Department has once again issued
a notification for creation of almost 80 new Gram Sabhas vide its
notification dated 28
th
February, 2026.
It is pointed out that continuous creation/
re-organizatiom/bifurcation of Gram Sabhas could lead to violation
of guidelines issued by tho Hon'ble Supreme Court, because the
creation of new Gram Sabha circles will have adverse effect on the
delimitation of wards already notified, not only in Panchayats but
even Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads.
The Commission has also enforced clause 12.1 of Model
Code of Conduct vide its notification dated 17
th
November, 2025
specifically freezing tho boundaries of Panchayati Raj Institutions.
The Department had sought relaxation in Model Code of Conduct
while sending a proposal for creation of 31 Gram Sabhas, but
thereafter several new Gram Sabha circles have been notified by
the Department without seeking any relaxation from the
Commission, including aforementioned 80 Gram Sabhas.
The continuous creation of new Gram Sabhas even after
publication of draft proposals of delimitation of wards in bound to
create legal complications and lead to violation of the direction of
the Hon'ble Supremo Court of India.
Therefore, you are hereby advised to stop creating/re-
organizing any new Panchayat/Gram Sabha forthwith and work to
ensure that delimitation of all rural local bodies and their reservation
roster are finalized and issued by end of March 2026.
Yours faithfully
sd/-
(Surjeet Singh Rathore)
Secretary
2026:HHC:10132
-33-
State Election Commission
Himachal Pradesh
Endst: SEC(F)1-45/2024-6731-43Shimla-2 05 March, 2026
Copy to the following for information and necessary compliance:-
1. The Director Panchayati Raj Department, Himachal Pradesh.
2. All the Deputy Commissioners, Himachal Pradesh.
sd/-
Secretary
State Election Commission
Himachal Pradesh”
49. Vide order dated 25
th
March, 2026, the
respondents/State was restrained from acting upon the draft
proposals, proposals, draft notifications, final notifications, under
challenge in the Court, related to bifurcation, creation or
reorganization of Panchayats, which were not pending on or before
13.2.2026, i.e. the date of order passed by the Apex Court, unless
permitted in relaxation of Notification dated 17.11.2025 by the H.P.
State Election Commission and in such cases, respondents-State was
restrained from proceeding further on the basis of said
proposals/notifications but act considering the same as not issued
ever.
50. During pendency of petitions, State had applied for
relaxation from the State Election Commission, whereupon State
Election Commission vide communication dated 28
th
March, 2026,
has granted relaxation in Clause 12.1 of Model Code of Conduct in
respect of Panchayats detailed in the application for relaxation
submitted by the State. Operative part whereof reads as under:-
2026:HHC:10132
-34-
“......
However, keeping in view the undertaking given by the
Govt. In its letter dated 27.03.2026 that delimitation in these re-
organized/newly created Panchayats has been completed and
reservation process shall be completed by 31.03.2026 and to
ensure that limitation in minimized, the Commission hereby grants
relaxation in clause 12.1 of the MCC in respect of Panchayats
enclosed as Flag-A and Flag-B subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the Govt. shall ensure that the reservation process in
respect of all Panchayats in State shall be completed by
31.3.2026 in pursuance to the orders dated 13.02.2026 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2.That the Govt. should in due course issue a guidelines to the
Deputy Commissioners in pursuance to the orders of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (C) No. 26468-
26469/2024 titled as Beant Kumar Vs. State of Punjab to
initiate the election processes six months prior to the expiry of
the term in future and to adhere to the instructions/directions
of the Commission related to conduct of Local Bodies
elections without exception.
3.The Deputy Commissioners should issue roster of reservation
three months before the commencement of election process in
pursuance to the orders of Hon’ble High Court passed in CWP
No. 5987 of 2020 titled as Manish Dharmaik Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh in future.
4.The Govt. must not disturb the boundaries of Panchayats in
future, once the initial re-organization/creation has been
notified or clause 12.1 of MCC is enforced by the Commission,
unless express relaxation is granted by the Commission
before issuing of draft proposal.”
5.No further relaxation in any matter, what so ever, shall
be considered by the Commission till the election process is
completed.”
51. Learned Advocate General has also claimed that after
granting relaxation with respect to proposal relating to bifurcation/re-
origination of Gram Panchayats in all cases submitted by the State to
the Election Commission vide letter dated 28
th
March, 2026, the
2026:HHC:10132
-35-
present petitions deserve to be dismissed.
52. The aforesaid plea of learned Advocate General is
misconceived, as Election Commission can relax the provisions of the
Model Code of Conduct as permissible under law, but Election
Commission has no power to relax the norms and statutory provisions
like Election Rules framed under the Panchayati Raj Act in
consonance with the mandate of the Constitution. Therefore,
relaxation by the Election Commission, is not an exemption from
adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules framed
thereunder.
53. To the objections of the petitioners, that Election
Commission was not competent to grant relaxation to the provisions
of Clause 12.1 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayats and
Municipalities Model Code of Conduct, 2020, as vide notification
dated 17.11.2025, the Election Commissioner had freezed the
creation/re-organization/bifurcation/ delimitation of the area of the
Gram Panchayats, learned counsel for the Commission has submitted
that in view of Section 21 of the H.P. General Clauses Act,
Commission is empowered to modify its notifications to facilitate the
functioning of the respondents-State. However, he is in agreement
that Commission has no power to relax the rules and relaxation by the
Commission was given on the basis of undertaking given by the
Government in its letter dated 27.3.2026, whereby it was
2026:HHC:10132
-36-
communicated that delimitation in re-organized newly created
Panchayats, in reference, has been completed and reservation
process shall be completed by 31
st
March, 2026 and also to ensure
that litigation is minimized.
54. Provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the
H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, relevant for adjudication ,
are as under:-
(A)Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
CHAPTER-II
GRAM SABHA
3. Declaration of Sabha area.- (1) The Government
may, by notification, declare any village or group of contiguous
villages with a population of not less than one thousand and not
more than five thousand to constitute one or more Sabha areas for
the purposes of this act and also specify its headquarter:
Provided that in a Scheduled area the Government may
by order declare any village or group of contiguous villages with a
population of less than one thousand to constitute a Sabha area:
Provided further that the Government may, after having due regard
of the geographical location, lack of means of transport and
communication and administrative convenience, declare an area
comprising a village or group of contiguous villages having a
population either less than one thousand or more than five
thousand to constitute a Sabha area.
(2) The Government may, at the request of the Gram Sabha
concerned or otherwise, and after previous publication of a
proposal by a notification, at any time,-
(a) increase any Sabha area by including within such Sabha area
any village or group of villages; or (b) diminish any Sabha area by
excluding from such Sabha area any village or group of villages; or
(c) alter the headquarter of any Sabha area; or (d) alter the name
of any Sabha area; or (e) declare that any area shall cease to be a
Sabha area:
[(2-A) When on account of the reason that the Sabha area is,
during the term of the Gram Panchayat, increased or diminished or
ceased under subsection (2), the increase or diminution or
cessation of the Sabha area shall not affect the term of the office
2026:HHC:10132
-37-
bearers of Gram Panchayat, till the expiration of the duration of the
Gram Panchayat specified in sub-section (1) of section 120 or its
dissolution under section 140 of this Act.
(3) If the whole of the Sabha area is included in a municipality, the
Sabha area shall cease to exist and its assets and liabilities shall in
the manner prescribed be disposed of.
(3-A). Diminution of the Sabha area not to affect the term of certain
office bearers.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in this Act, but subject to the provision of sub-section (2-A) of
section 3, when on account of reason that the Sabha area or the
portion thereof is included in a municipality or a portion of
municipality excluded therefrom is included in a Sabha area, during
the term of the office of the office bearers of a Panchayat Samiti or
Zila Parishad, such increase or diminution of the Sabha area, shall
not affect the term of the office bearers of the Panchayat Samiti or
Zila Parishad, till the expiration of its duration specified in sub-
section (1) of section 12 of this Act or its dissolution under section
140 of this Act.
........
124. Territorial Constituencies.- For the convenience of the
election and also after every increase or decrease of the
Panchayat area, the Deputy Commissioner shall, in accordance
with such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State
Government-
(a) divide the Panchayat area into as many single member
territorial constituencies as the number of members are required to
be elected; (b) determine the extent of each territorial constituency;
and (c) determine the territorial constituency or constituencies in
which seats are reserved under this Act.
(B) Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election)
Rules, 1994.
CHAPTER II
DELIMITATION OF CONSTITUENCIES OF PANCHAYATS
Rule - 3. Gram Sabha area to be divided into constituencies :-
(1) For the purpose of holding of election of members to a Gram
Panchayat the Sabha area shall be divided into constituencies.
(2) The number of constituencies under sub-rule (1) shall be
determined in accordance with the provisions of section 8.
Rule - 5. Proposal for delimitation of constituencies and its
publication :-
The Deputy Commissioner or any other officer,
authorised by him in this behalf shall cause to be published a
2026:HHC:10132
-38-
proposal for delimitation of constituencies by dividing a Gram
Sabha area into constituencies and shall also indicate the territorial
limit Code s of each such constituency and shall keep the proposal
open for inspection in the office of the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat
Samiti within the territorial jurisdiction of which such sabha area
falls and by affixing a copy of the same at two conspicuous places
within such sabha area for inviting public objections thereon, within
7 days.
Rule - 6. Disposal of objections and final order :-
The Deputy Commissioner, or any other officer authorised by him
in this behalf, on receipt of objections, if any, under rule 5 shall
inquire into the same and shall consider them within a period of
seven days or such a shorter time as may be fixed by the
Government and final order of delimitation of constituencies shall
be made by him only after recording brief reasons for the
acceptance or rejection of the objections.
Rule - 7. Name and number of constituency :-
Rule - 8. Delimitation of constituencies of a Panchayat
Samiti :
Rule - 9. Delimitation of constituencies of a Zila
Parishad :-
Rule - 10. Appeal :-
Any elector aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy
Commissioner may file an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner
within a period of 10 days and who, after giving an opportunity of
being heard to the appellant shall decide the same within a period
of 15 days and communicate his orders thereon to the Deputy
Commissioner. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner
shall be final.
Rule - 11. Final publication of delimitation of constituencies :-
(1) The delimitation made under rules 6, 8 and 9 shall be amended
in the light of the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, if any,
made under rule 10 and the delimitation shall be finalised within a
period of 30 days from the date of publication of the proposal in
this behalf. A copy of the final orders of the delimitation of
2026:HHC:10132
-39-
constituencies of the Panchayats shall be affixed on the notice
boards of the offices of the Deputy Commissioner, Zila Parishad,
Panchayat Samiti, Gram Panchayat and at such other places as
the Deputy Commissioner may decide and the copies of the same
shall also be sent to the State Election Commission and the State
Government.
(2) An elector may obtain a copy of the final delimitation order by
making an application to the Deputy Commissioner or to the
Secretary of the Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Gram Panchayat,
as the case may be, who shall make available the same to the said
elector on payment of rupees five per page or part thereof against
cash receipt.”
55. In Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh’s case, relied upon by learned
Advocate General, vide amendment dated 4.2.2021 carried out by the
State of Goa, Section 10(1) of Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 was
amended and time frame for issuance of notification for reservation of
wards was stated as being at least 7 days before the notification for
the scheduled dates and events of the elections. In present case no
amendment has been carried out by the State in 7 days time frame
provided for inviting objections in Rule 5 of the Election Rules.
Therefore, plea of the Advocate General by referring this judgment to
justify curtailing the time of 7 days to 3 days, is not sustainable. Plea
of Advocate General by referring para 68.4 is also not relevant in
present matter as election programme has not been notified yet and
as per para 68.8, at this stage this Court can exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2026:HHC:10132
-40-
56. Recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in
Kishorchandra Chhhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(2024) 13 SCC 237, is relevant to be referred to deal with the
objections raised by the respondents, wherein after taking into
consideration earlier judgments of the Apex Court titled as Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat
& Ors., (2020) 6 SCC 548 and State of Goa and Anr. vs. Fouziya
Imtiaz Shaikh & Anr., (2021) 8 SCC 401, it has been held as under:-
“5.We, however, do not approve the view taken by the High
Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in
exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely
insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Although Article 329 undeniably
restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny re: validity of any law relating
to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, it cannot be construed to have imposed for every
action of delimitation exercise. If judicial intervention is deemed
completely barred, citizens would not have any forum to plead their
grievances, leaving them solely at the mercy of the Delimitation
Commission. As a constitutional court and guardian of public
interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary to the Court’s
duties and the principle of separation of powers.
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.
7. Therefore, while the Courts shall always be guided by the
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
2026:HHC:10132
-41-
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.
8. In order to prove that any kind of judicial intervention is fully
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:
“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.”
57. In para 68.5 of Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh’s judgment
(supra), it was held that writ court may interfere in such cases to
subserve and facilitate the progress of election.
2026:HHC:10132
-42-
58. Plea of learned Advocate General that without
completing fresh delimitation pending consideration before the State,
elections could not be conducted, as it is not sustainable, as the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 1607 of 2026 has categorically observed that
this High Court was equally right in observing that pendency of
delimitation exercise is not a valid ground to delay or stall the
elections of local bodies and Panchayats. Reference of Devinder
Singh Negi’s judgment, entitling the respondents-State to carryout
delimitation process without adhering to the Rules relevant thereto, is
also misconceived, as in para 51 of the judgment in Dikken Kumar’s
case this High Court has already observed that the respondents had
also an option to conduct elections on the basis of past delimitation.
59. The respondent/State and its Officers were and are well
aware about the time frame prescribed in the Act and Rules for
creation, bifurcation or reorganization and de-limitation of Gram
Panchayats as also evident from the communication/instructions
issued by the concerned Department/Officers time to time including
communication dated 18.2.2026 sent by the Panchayati Raj
Department to all Deputy Commissioners after judgment passed by
the Apex Court on 13
th
February, 2026. Despite that,
respondents/State ventured in creating mess by undertaking creation,
bifurcation or re-organization of Gram Panchayats not only in the end
of month of February, but also in March, whereas entire process was
2026:HHC:10132
-43-
to be completed uptil determination of Roster by 31
st
March, 2026. It is
also apparent that as per time frame, provided in relevant provisions,
well known to the respondents/State and its Officers, it was not
possible to finalize the de-limitation, which was required to be
compelled by the end of February 2026. The State had obtained one
month’s more time from the Apex Court to determine the Roster after
delimitation, but by initiating the process of creation, bifurcation or
reorganization on 28.2.2026, and even on 16
th
March, 2026, such
process was not possible to be completed on or before 31
st
March,
2026 by strictly adhering to the relevant provisons of Act and Rules.
On noticing such conduct of respondents/State, this Court, in
judgment dated 10
th
March, 2026, passed in CWP No. 1791 of 2026
titled Nehru Yuva Club of Village Manlog-Badog vs. State of HP
has already observed as under:-
“43. Before parting, it is also apt to record that we fail to understand
that when 5 years’ term of Panchayati Raj Institutions has already
expired and respondents are bound by mandate of the Constitution,
reiterated by Courts, including Apex Court, with direction to
complete election process latest by 31.05.2026, then why
respondents are venturing in large scale reorganization and
constitution of Wards/Panchayati Raj Institutions, which has not
been done on time. Such commission on the part of State may
cause to draw adverse inference about intention. Respondents-
State should not undertake such exercise, which may be
considered delaying tactic or procrastination, as due to paucity of
time, decision taken in haste are leaving lacuna, intentional or
unintentional, warranting scope of interreference in judicial review.”
2026:HHC:10132
-44-
60. It is also clarified that after judgment passed in Devinder
Singh Negi’s case and Manish Dharmaik’s case as well as
judgment passed in CWPIL No. 115 of 2025 titled Dikken Kumar
Thakur and another vs. State of HP, are not in conflict with each
other. But these judgments are to be read harmoniously taking into
consideration the nature of issue involved therein and the timing of
filing, adjudication and decision of these writ petitions. The directions
passed in Manish Dharmaik’s case are absolutely correct and in
force which are expected to be abide by the State unless directed or
permitted by the Court. However, because of action/inaction on the
part of respondents/State which were in conflict with settled law,
litigation in Devinder Singh Negi’s case and Dikken Kumar
Thakur’s case has resulted passing of appropriate directions in the
given facts and circumstances but in these judgments, it has nowhere
been directed or held that directions passed in Manish Dharmaik’s
case had been diluted or modified. Rather, it is respondent/State,
which, on account of their omission or commission from time to time,
have caused breach of such directions.
61. Therefore, it is also incorrect to suggest that this Court
had ignored the directions issued by Co-ordinate Division Bench of
this High Court in Manish Dharmaik’s case, as in the judgment
passed in Devinder Singh Negi’s case, the direction was given to do
2026:HHC:10132
-45-
the needful as expeditiously as possible, which includes not only the
steps for re-delimitation of Zila Parishads wards, but also conducting
election on the basis of past delimitation, particularly when the base
data of censes of 2011, which was taken for delimitation previously in
the 2020, is also being taken base data in present delimitation. Plea
of learned Advocate General with respect to understanding of
completion of pending process by 31
st
March, 2026, claiming
entitlement for re-opening or initiate fresh proposals for re-
organization/creation/ bifurcation as well as delimitation, also appears
to be afterthought, because after passing of judgment by the Apex
Court in SLP No. 5451 of 2026 (Civil Appeal No. 1607 of 2026),
Government of Himachal Pradesh had, itself, issued communication
to all Deputy Commissioners by providing time frame for issuance of
proposals of delimitation and finalization thereof, which reads as
under:-
“PCH-HA (4)1/2000-Delimitation-6081-22
Government of Himachal Pradesh
Department of Panchayati Raj
To
All the Deputy Commissioners,
in Himachal Pradesh.
Shimla-09 Dated- 18-02-2026
Subjcct: SLP (C) No. 5451/2026, The Principal
Secretary & Ors, V. Dikken Kumar Thakur
& Ors. (Supreme Court of India, order dated
13.02.2026)
Madam/Sir,
2026:HHC:10132
-46-
Please refer to this office letter No. PCH-HA
(4)1/2020- Delimitation dated 20-12-2025 on the subject
cited above. In Civil Appeal arising out of SIP (C) No
5451/2026, The Principal Secretary & Ors. v. Dikken
Kumar Thakur & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, order dated
13.02.2026), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has modified the
timeline stipulated in the High Court's judgment dated
09.01.2026 in CWPIL No. 115 of 2025, Dikken Kumar
Thakur & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., by
directing that the State Election Commission, Panchayati
Raj Department, Urban Development Department and
SDMA to complete all pending processors by 31.03.2026
(instead of 28.02.2026), and that elections shall thereafter
be conducted within eight weeks positively by 31.05.2026,
with an express direction that no application for extension
of time shall be entertained, In compliance of the order of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am to inform you that
following time schedule for delimitation and reservation of
wards of Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samitis/ Gram
Panchayals (wherever not already finalized) may be
followed strictly:
Notification of Delimitation
proposal
On or before 20-02-2026
Objection period (07 Days Upto 27-02-2026
Final publication of delimitation
within 2 days
On or before 02-03-2026
Appeal Time (10 days) Upto 11-03-2026
Period for hearing and deciding
the appeal by Divisional
Commissioner (7 Days
7 days from the date of
appeal
Final publication of delimitation as
per decision of Divisional
Commissioner on the appeal, if
any.
By 20-03-2026
Final reservation of constituencies On or before 31.-03-2026
2026:HHC:10132
-47-
It is clarified that the delimitation pending due to
reorganization of Blocks or Gram Panchayats and creation
of new Gram Panchayats, should also be completed by
20-03-2026 and the notification of final reservation of
constituencies should be issued on or before 31-03-2026
as per provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and
rules made thereunder. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, all statutory processes relating to the
Department should invariably be completed by 31-03-
2026.
In view of the above, you are requested to notify
the delimitation and reservation of PRIs within stipulated
time.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
Director-cum-Special Secretary (PR) to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh.
Endst.No.-6093-6108 Shimla-171009,
Dated 18-02-2026
Copy for information and necessary action:
1. The Divisional Commissioner Shimla, Mandi and
Kangra Divisions for information.
2.The Secretary, State Election Commission, H.P.
3.All the District Panchayat Officers in H.P.
Sd/-
Director-cum-Special Secretary (PR)
to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.”
62. Despite aforesaid communication, we fail to understand
that for what reason the respondents-State ventured to initiate
publication of draft notification by entertaining the cases which were
2026:HHC:10132
-48-
either dormant or fresh for consideration and were not being
considered for creation/bifurcation or re-organization of Gram
Panchayats till February, 2026 even before or after passing of
judgment dated 9.1.2026 in CWPIL No. 115 of 2025 as well as
passing of judgment dated 13.2.2026 by the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1607 of 2026. The State itself has created a mess and
opened pandora box, resulting into filing of numerous petitions,
wherein fresh re-organization/creation/bifurcation exercise of Gram
Panchayats have been initiated on 28
th
February, 2026 and thereafter,
by inviting objections within 3 days and thereafter finalizing the
creation/re-organization/creation of Gram Panchayats in a haste and
immediately thereafter issuing notification of draft proposal of
delimitation and finalizing the same without adhering to the time frame
provided in the Election Rules.
63. Conduct of respondent-State is arbitrary, irrational,
unreasonable, violative of Constitutional Mandate and manifestly
defeating the object and purpose of Constitutional provisions,
institution established and law framed thereunder.
64. Following observation of the Apex Court in Bombay
Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group
& Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 434, are relevant to adjudicate present
petition:-
2026:HHC:10132
-49-
“205.Arbitrariness on the part of the legislature so as to make the
legislation violative of Article 14 of the Constitution should ordinarily
be manifest arbitrariness. What would be arbitrary exercise of
legislative power would depend upon the provisions of the statute
vis-à-vis the purpose and object thereof. [See Sharma Transport v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2002) 2 SCC 188, para 25,
Khoday Distillery v. State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304 and
Otis Elevator Employees' Union S. Reg. and Others v. Union of
India, (2003) 12 SCC 68, para 17].
…..
207.In Secy., Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers vs. Cipla Ltd.,
(2003) 7 SCC 1, this Court in relation to a legislation while
interpreting the statutory provisions on the touchstone of Article 14
of the Constitution of India, was of the opinion: (SCC p. 9, para 4.1)
“[T]he Government exercising its delegated legislative
power should make a real and earnest attempt to
apply the criteria laid down by itself. The delegated
legislation that follows the policy formulation should be
broadly and substantially in conformity with that policy,
otherwise it would be vulnerable to attack on the
ground of arbitrariness resulting in violation of Article
14.”
It was further opined: (SCC p.10, para 4.3)
“Broadly, the subordinate law-making authority is
guided by the policy and objectives of the primary
legislation disclosed by the preamble and other
provisions. The delegated legislation need not be
modelled on a set pattern or prefixed guidelines.
However, where the delegate goes a step further,
draws up and announces a rational policy in keeping
with the purposes of the enabling legislation and even
lays down specific criteria to promote the policy, the
criteria so evolved become the guideposts for its
legislative action. In that sense, its freedom of
classification will be regulated by the self-evolved
criteria and there should be demonstrable justification
for deviating therefrom.”
65. Observation of the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Dairy
Development Corporation Federation vs. B. Nrasimha Reddy and
Others, (2011) 9 SCC 286, are also relevant to refer, which reads as
under: -
“29.It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the
Constitution strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is
arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. This
2026:HHC:10132
-50-
doctrine of arbitrariness is not restricted only to executive actions,
but also applies to legislature. Thus, a party has to satisfy that the
action was reasonable, not done in unreasonable manner or
capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle,
rational, and has been done according to reason or judgment, and
certainly does not depend on the will alone. However, the action of
legislature, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, should
ordinarily be manifestly arbitrary. There must be a case of
substantive unreasonableness in the statute itself for declaring the
act ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Vide: Ajay Hasia etc.
v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722; Reliance Airport
Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, (2006) 10 SCC 1;
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board,
(2007) 6 SCC 668; Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers
Employees and Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd., (2009) 5
SCC 342; and State of TN & Ors. v. K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8
SCC 737).”
66. In Shayara Bano vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9
SCC 1, the Apex Court has observed that arbitrariness doctrine
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution would apply to negate
Legislation and Subordinate Legislation with following further
observations:-
“95.On a reading of this judgment in Natural Resources
Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1,
it is clear that this Court did not read, State of A.P. vs. McDowell
and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709, as being an authority for the
proposition that legislation can never be struck down as being
arbitrary. Indeed the Court, after referring to all the earlier
judgments, and Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1
SCC 722, in particular, which stated that legislation can be struck
down on the ground that it is “arbitrary” under Article 14, went on to
conclude that “arbitrariness” when applied to legislation cannot be
used loosely. Instead, it broad based the test, stating that if a
constitutional infirmity is found, Article 14 will interdict such infirmity.
And a constitutional infirmity is found in Article 14 itself whenever
legislation is “manifestly arbitrary” i.e. when it is not fair, not
reasonable, discriminatory, not transparent, capricious, biased, with
favoritism or nepotism and not in pursuit of promotion of healthy
competition and equitable treatment. Positively speaking, it should
conform to norms which are rational, informed with reason and
guided by public interest, etc.
96.Another Constitution Bench decision reported as Dr.
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,
2026:HHC:10132
-51-
(2014) 8 SCC 682, dealt with a challenge to Section 6-A of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. This Section was ultimately
struck down as being discriminatory and hence violative of Article
14. A specific reference had been made to the Constitution Bench
by the reference order in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2005) 2 SCC 317, and after
referring to several judgments including Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722, Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of
India, (2004)) 4 SCC 311, Malpe Vishwanath Acharya vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 1 and State of A.P. vs. McDowell and
Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709, the reference inter alia was as to whether
arbitrariness and unreasonableness, being facets of Article 14, are
or are not available as grounds to invalidate a legislation.
97.After referring to the submissions of counsel, and several
judgments on the discrimination aspect of Article 14, this Court held:
[Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682, pp. 721-22, paras 48-49]
“48. In E.P. Royappa [E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC
3, it has been held by this Court that the basic principle which
informs both Articles 14 and 16 are equality and inhibition against
discrimination. This Court observed in para 85 as under: (SCC p.
38)
“85. … From a positivistic point of view, equality is
antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule
of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and
caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is
arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law and is
therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any
matter relating to public employment, it is also violative
of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in
State action and ensure fairness and equality of
treatment.”
Court's approach
49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity
of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep
in view that there is always a presumption of
constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear
transgression of constitutional principles must be
shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the
legislative process needs to be recognised by the Court
and due regard and deference must be accorded to the
legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to be
challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind
itself to the principles relating to the applicability of
Article 14 in relation to invalidation of legislation. The
two dimensions of Article 14 in its application to
legislation and rendering legislation invalid are now well
recognised and these are: (i) discrimination, based on
2026:HHC:10132
-52-
an impermissible or invalid classification, and (ii)
excessive delegation of powers; conferment of
uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive,
whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of
conferment of authority to pass administrative orders—if
such conferment is without any guidance, control or
checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation
does not become unconstitutional merely because there
is another view or because another method may be
considered to be as good or even more effective, like
any issue of social, or even economic policy. It is well
settled that the courts do not substitute their views on
what the policy is.”
67. Election Rule 5 provides a valuable democratic right to
file objections within 7 days by providing that Deputy Commissioner or
any other Officer authorized by him on this behalf ‘shall’ cause to
publish a proposal of delimitation of the consequences by inviting
public objections thereon within 7 days.
68. Rule 6 of the Election Rules provides 7 days further time
for deciding objections and the said decision on objections is
appealable under Rule 10 of Election Rules within a period of 10 days
after the decision with further provision to decide the appeal within 15
days after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant and to
communicate the order to the Deputy Commissioner. At the time of
initiation of process for bifurcation/creation and re-organization on 28
th
February, 2026 or thereafter in March, 2026 like in present cases, it
was very much clear that the entire process cannot be completed
within the time frame provided under the Act as well as Election
Rules.
2026:HHC:10132
-53-
69. No doubt, there is no time frame provided under Section
3 of PR Act for inviting objections, however the world used in Section
3(2) of PR Act that there shall be previous publication of proposal of
creation/bifurcation/re-organization of Gram Sabhas, has inherent
mandate that such proposal shall be notified by previous publication
of such notification and such exercise is not to be necessarily
undertaken at the time of elections only, but must be taken sufficient
months before commencement of election process, as under Section
3(3)(3-A) of the PR Act safeguard has been provided to the period of
term of the office bearers of the Gram Panchayats, irrespective of
creation/bifurcation/re-organization of Gram Sabha area. Previous
publication has to be notified in the Gram Sabha area and made
known to the residents of that area by giving sufficient time to
respond.
70. For completing the delimitation, Election Rules as
discussed supra mandates 7 days clear notice for inviting objections
and even if it is considered that objections can be decided by the
Deputy Commissioner on the very first day, than 8 days will be
consumed in this process and thereafter there is 10 days limitation
period for filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and
even if it is presumed that appeal may be decided by the Divisional
Commissioner on the very first day after filing on last date of limitation
period, than also 11 days further time is required for completing the
2026:HHC:10132
-54-
process before Divisional Commissioner and in such a manner at
least 19 days were and are required for completing the delimitation of
consequences of Panchayats after publication of draft notification of
delimitation and the said exercise in the given facts and
circumstances of present cases was never possible. Therefore, act of
the respondents-State venturing into creation/bifurcation/re-
organization of Gram Panchayats by initiating the process on 28
th
February, 2026 or thereafter was and is unwarranted and contrary to
the mandate of law, which may amount to defeat the object and
purpose of mandate of law as well as Courts. It is not a case like Goa
Municipality Act that an amendment has been carried out by the State
by changing the time limit provided in Rule 5 of the Election Rules.
The Rules have been framed by exercising the powers provided
under the Panchayati Raj Act, which is Statute enacted by the State
Legislature in sequel to mandate of the Constitution.
71. The Officers of the State cannot dilute such mandate
without resorting to lawful means for modification thereof, therefore, it
is not a statutory irregularity, but a glaring illegality, where time frame
provided for filing objections have been curtailed and final delimitation
has been either issued or proposed to be issued without providing
right to the electors to file an appeal against the decision of Deputy
Commissioner. Rather the residents have been deprived from filing
objections, if any, by providing a short period of 3 days, whereas in
2026:HHC:10132
-55-
some cases the notification had reached in the area after expiry of 3
days. Thus notifications, notifying the final delimitation are not
sustainable and accordingly quashed and set aside and respondents
are directed to complete the exercise of notifying the roster on or
before 7
th
April, 2026, as agreed, and thereafter to ensure completion
of election process within the time granted by the Apex Court latest by
31.05.2026.
72. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances,
particularly the fact that elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions could
not be held before expiry of term of such Institutions and are being
held under mandate of the Apex Court, undertaking of exercise by the
respondents-State initiating process for creation/re-organization or
bifurcation of Gram Panchayats, at this stage, was and is completely
unwarranted.
73. We have set aside the delimitation of Gram Panchayats
in present petitions with reference to the procedure prescribed under
PR Act and Rules framed thereunder and we have not decided the
objections raised in these petitions on factual matrix.
74. Therefore, these petitions are disposed of with following
observations and directions, which are required to be completed
immediately in present petitions as well as in future in rem:-
1. There are two steps provided in the H.P.
Panchayati Raj Act and Rules, 1994 (in short ‘The Act”)
2026:HHC:10132
-56-
framed thereunder regarding creation, bifurcation and
de-limitation of the Panchayats. First steps is creation,
reorganization and bifurcation of the Gram Panchayats
by the Government as provided in Section 3 of the Act.
After the said exercise, second step, which has to be
taken by the concerned Deputy Commissioner as
provided under Section 124 of the Act, is to undertake
exercise of de-limitation of Territorial Constituencies as
prescribed in the The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj
(Election) Rules, 1994 (in short “H.P. Elections Rules”).
2. For purpose of delimitation, procedure
prescribed in Chapter II of the H.P. Elections Rules
under Rules 3 to 11 has to be followed wherein Rule 5
provides 7 days’ mandatory notice after publication of
proposal of de-limitation and Rule 6 provides 7 days’
time to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal of
objections and final order. Rule 10 provides 10 days’
limitation period time for filing appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner against the order of Deputy
Commissioner and said appeal has to be decided within
15 days thereafter, but after giving opportunity of hearing
to the appellant. After completion of this process, final
publication of determination of Constituencies has to be
made under Rule 11.
3. When Statute and Rule(s) prescribe the
procedure for carrying out the creation, bifurcation,
reorganization and resultant de-limitation of Territorial
Constituencies in the Gram Panchayats, the same is
bound to be strictly adhered to, during such exercise.
Any act must be undertaken in a manner as provided in
Statute and Rules. The word ‘shall’ used in Rules depicts
mandatory nature of aforesaid provisions, indicating the
Legislative Intent and Object of the Statute and Rules
framed thereunder.
2026:HHC:10132
-57-
4. The word “pending proceedings” mentioned
in judgment dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Apex Court
in Civil Appeal No.1607 of 2026 titled ‘The Principal
Secretary & Ors. vs. Dikken Kumar Thakur & Ors.’,
denotes those proceedings/cases in which at least
proposal for creation, bifurcation and re-organization has
been notified, prior to passing of such judgment, but
does not include the cases in which such proposal was
notified, after passing of said judgment that too on the
basis of request lying dormant since last more than six
months or more.
5. Grant of relaxation with respect to imposition
of Clause 12.1 of Himachal Pradesh Panchayats and
Municipalities Model Code of Conduct, 2020 by the State
Election Commission does not mean relaxation in
mandatory provisions of the Act enacted and Rules
framed thereunder, in exercise of powers in furtherance
of mandate of Constitution.
6. Respondents are bound to follow the
provisions of all relevant Rules related to creation,
bifurcation, reorganization and de-limitation of Gram
Panchayats and Territorial Constituencies related
thereto, including the time-frame provided for notifying
and deciding the objections and to prefer appeals
against such decision.
7. De-limitation of Panchayats completed
without adhering to provisions of Chapter II of The
Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules,
1994 (in short “H.P. Elections Rules”) dealing with De-
limitation of Constituencies of Panchayats, especially
Rule 5, 6, 10 and 11, are patently illegal and thus, the
said de-limitation is not valid for consideration to
determine the Territorial Constituencies as well as
Roster related thereto.
8. In these cases Proposal/Draft for creation,
bifurcation, reorganization and de-limitation of Gram
Panchayat has been notified after 13.02.2026 and de-
limitation has been completed thereafter without
2026:HHC:10132
-58-
adherence of provisions of Acts and Rules, therefore
such creation, bifurcation, re-organization and de-
limitation shall not be made basis for determination of
de-limitation of Territorial Constituencies in the
concerned Gram Panchayats, at all levels and thus, for
the purpose of conducting recent elections, including
determination of Territorial Constituencies as well as
Roster, the same shall not to be taken into consideration
and elections shall be conducted in these Panchayats
ignoring the creation, bifurcation or reorganization and
de-limitation carried out de hors of provisions of Act and
Rules but on the basis of status of the Panchayats and
de-limitation of Territorial Constituencies thereof as
existing prior to such creation or reorganization,
bifurcation and de-limitation during past elections.
9. Where proposal for creation, bifurcation and
reorganization has been notified prior to 13.02.2026 and
de-limitation has been completed by strictly adhering to
the H.P. Election Rules related thereto including time
frame especially Rules 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Election
Rules, such creation, bifurcation, reorganization and de-
limitation thereof, shall only be taken into consideration
for determining the Roster and conducting recent
elections, as per the provisions in force.
10. Where reorganization, creation and
bifurcation is valid, but for de-limitation procedure
prescribed under H.P. Election Rules has not been
followed, the elections shall not be conducted on that
basis, but shall be conducted without taking into
consideration the said creation, bifurcation and
reorganization, and such creation, bifurcation and
reorganization though subject to final outcome of litigation
if any, shall be effective for next elections.
11. As agreed respondent/State is directed to
finalize the Roster accordingly and publish the same,
latest by 7
th
April, 2026 and thereafter, respondents shall
ensure completion of entire election process within time-
frame granted in judgment dated 13.02.2026 of the Apex
2026:HHC:10132
-59-
Court in Civil Appeal No.1607 of 2026 titled ‘The
Principal Secretary & Ors. vs. Dikken Kumar Thakur &
Ors.’, referred supra.
12.Keeping in view the urgency and peculiar
circumstances, prevailing right now, we have not decided
otsher issues related to validity of creation, bifurcation,
reorganization and de-limitation of the Gram Panchayats
raised in these petitions, the same are left open to be
decided in appropriate proceedings, including fresh
petition, if so preferred by petitioners within reasonable
period.
13.It has been noticed that every time, exercise of
creation, bifurcation or reorganization is undertaken at
the fag end of tenure of Panchayati Raj Institutions
leading to delay in de-limitation of Territorial
Constituencies of Panchayats and resultantly, causing
delay in determination of Roster, leaving short and
sometime no time for aggrieved persons to avail
appropriate remedy for redressal of their grievances and
also, to verify and adjudicate the veracity of such
grievances. Therefore, it is directed that creation,
bifurcation or reorganization of Gram Panchayats shall be
initiated well in time, but not after nine months prior to
expiry of tenure of Panchayati Raj Institutions and in all
eventualities, creation, bifurcation or reorganization of
Gram Panchayats must be completed before six months
prior to expiry of Panchayati Raj Institutions, so that
during next two months, i.e. between 6 and 4 months
prior to expiry of tenure, de-limitation as well as
determination of Roster is completed in all respects by
following the procedure prescribed under Panchayati Raj
Act and Rules framed thereunder, including the time
frame provided under Chapter II of H.P. Panchayati Raj
(Election) Rules, 1994.
14. The creation, bifurcation or reorganization
undertaken after six months prior to expiry of tenure shall
not be considered for conducting elections and
reservation of roster and election in those areas shall be
2026:HHC:10132
-60-
completed on the basis of status of area existing prior to
such creation, bifurcation or reorganization according to
de-limitation in previous elections and roster for such
Territorial Constituencies shall also be determined
accordingly.
15. In cases of re-organization/separation/
creation of Gram Panchayats/Blocks etc., reservation of
offices therein should be allocated afresh based upon the
‘changed’ population structure in accordance with
relevant provisions of applicable Statute and the Rules.
However, while applying the Election Reservation Roster,
proper care should be take so that reservation roster gets
rotated to the maximum extent possible;
16.In future, the notification reserving offices in the
Gram Panchayats/Blocks in the State for various
categories in elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions is
published and placed in public domain on the website of
State Election Commission at least three months prior to
the commencement of election process to enable timely
adjudication of disputes pertaining to application/rotation
of election reservation roster. All consequent steps in
furtherance of same be also taken accordingly.”
75. The petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also
pending application(s) if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge.
31
st
March, 2026
(MS/Keshav/Pardeep)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....