NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday cautioned the Himachal Pradesh high court against repeatedly intervening in the functioning of the state government, observing that it appeared the HC was not allowing the elected dispensation to operate freely. The apex court said it would take a serious view of such interference in the future.
At the same time, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the high court’s decision rejecting the state government’s plea to defer local body elections by six months on the ground that a delimitation exercise was underway.
“Pendency of the delimitation exercise cannot be a ground to seek postponement of elections,” the bench observed. It added that the high court was correct in holding that timely elections to urban local bodies, municipalities and nagar panchayats are constitutionally mandated.
Himachal Pradesh has nearly 3,500 gram panchayats, 90 panchayat samitis, 11 zila parishads and 71 urban local bodies, most of which are due to go to the polls this year.
Taking note of logistical challenges and accessibility issues in remote areas during winter, the Supreme Court extended the high court’s April 30 deadline for completing the elections to May 31.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the petitioner on whose plea the high court had directed that the delimitation exercise be completed by February 28, told the bench that the deadline was fixed keeping in mind that nationwide Census operations were scheduled to begin from May 1. He said the state election commission had also referred to this timeline before the apex court.
Representing the state government, senior advocate V Giri argued that the high court should have factored in logistical constraints before prescribing a schedule for concluding the civic polls.
In its order, the CJI-led bench said, “The direction by the high court that elections to local bodies are required to be held after the expiry of their tenure as per constitutional mandate does not warrant any interference.”
However, considering practical difficulties, the court modified the timeline. It directed that all preparatory work be completed by March 31 instead of February 28, and that elections be conducted within eight weeks thereafter — positively before May 31. The bench made it clear that no request for further extension of time would be entertained.
