Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays 'Glaringly Unconstitutional' Panchayat Poll Notification
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to the state government, staying its March 30 notification that permitted deputy commissioners to alter reservation rosters for panchayat elections. In a strongly worded interim order, the court declared the notification "glaringly unconstitutional" and censured the government for repeated "omissions and commissions of creating mess" that have systematically delayed the crucial local body polls.
Court's Scathing Observations on Constitutional Violations
In a comprehensive 48-page interim order released on Tuesday, a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma dismantled the government's position. The bench emphatically stated that the power conferred upon deputy commissioners based on "geographical and other peculiar conditions" was fundamentally flawed.
"This power is vague, unbridled, and unguided," the court observed, adding that it has no nexus with the constitutional objectives outlined in Article 243-D of the Constitution and Section 125 of the Panchayati Raj Act. Rather than supporting these provisions, the court found the notification to be in direct breach of them.
Constitutional Mandate on Reservation Clearly Defined
The bench provided crucial clarity on the constitutional framework governing reservations in panchayat elections:
- Article 243-D and relevant Panchayati Raj Act provisions mandate reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women
- These reservations must be implemented strictly based on population ratios
- Neither the Constitution nor statutory law permits reservation or alteration of rosters based on "geographical or other vague considerations"
The court was hearing a public interest litigation moved by Vikesh Zinta and others, through which it determined that the March 30 notification was beyond the competence of the state government. The bench warned that allowing this amendment to remain enforceable would cause "irreparable injury to public interest."
Procedural Lapses and Government's Changing Position
The court identified significant procedural deficiencies in how the notification was issued:
- The March 30 notification was issued without prior publication or consultation with the State Election Commission
- Earlier notifications on March 13 and 21 showed the government's initial intent was to prevent reservation of panchayat office-bearer posts for the same category for three consecutive terms
- The March 21 amendment included an exception to maintain prescribed reservation quotas
- However, the March 30 notification superseded this position entirely, granting deputy commissioners power to alter reservation rosters up to 5% citing geographical and special conditions
Court's Directives and Timeline for Compliance
The bench has taken decisive action to rectify the situation:
- Stayed the operation of the March 30 notification until further orders
- Issued notice to the state government to file its reply by June 22
- Directed that any reservation roster issued considering the March 30 notification must be revised by April 7
- Remarked that given state officers' demonstrated efficiency in amending rules "at the fag end of the time granted by the court," they should be able to complete the process to reissue the roster within a day
This development comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's February directive ordering the state government to complete the entire panchayat election process by May 31. The High Court's intervention now places additional pressure on the administration to conduct these crucial local elections in a constitutionally compliant manner, free from what the court has characterized as "manifestly arbitrary actions" by the state government.
