Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the final notifications of ward formation for Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis across districts in Maharashtra. The Court held that judicial interference in ward delimitation is severely restricted under Article 243-O of the Constitution.
The Bench observed:
“This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would be loath to interfere with the final notification of delimitation, in the light of the Constitutional bar and the mandate of the Supreme Court to conduct elections without delay.”
The Court found that objections were invited, hearings were conducted, and detailed reasons were provided by the authorities. Since elections were imminent and governed by Supreme Court directions, no interference was warranted.
Facts
Multiple petitioners, largely agriculturists and aspiring candidates, challenged the final ward formation notifications issued under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
The State Government had issued an order dated 12 June 2025 prescribing the procedure for delimitation. Draft electoral divisions were published on 14 July 2025, objections were invited until 21 July 2025, hearings were conducted by Divisional Commissioners, and final notifications were published on 22 August 2025.
Petitioners argued that their objections were either ignored or arbitrarily rejected. They alleged that natural boundaries and Gram Panchayat integrity were not respected, and the zig-zag method prescribed in the Government order was not followed. They approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking quashing of the final notifications.
Issues
- Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to interfere with final notifications of ward formation for Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis.
- Whether alleged violations of procedure in rejecting objections justify judicial intervention.
- Whether the timing of the petitions, after issuance of the final notification and close to elections, disentitles petitioners from relief.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that despite filing objections within the stipulated period, their concerns regarding arbitrary boundary divisions were ignored. They argued that the authorities acted in violation of their own guidelines under the Government order of 12 June 2025, particularly regarding geographical contiguity, Gram Panchayat integrity, and natural boundaries.
Some petitioners further contended that their objections were filed even before the draft notification, but were later disregarded. It was argued that such arbitrary rejection amounted to mala fide exercise of power and violated principles of fairness in electoral delimitation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the Maharashtra Election Commission opposed the petitions, submitting that objections were duly considered by the Divisional Commissioners, who recorded reasons in writing. Hearings were granted to objectors, and final orders were published in the official gazette.
They emphasised the narrow scope of interference under Article 243-O, which bars courts from questioning delimitation once notifications are issued. They further relied on Supreme Court directions in Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (C) No. 19756/2021, order dated 6 May 2025), which mandated completion of local body elections within four months. Interference, they argued, would derail the democratic process.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that under Article 243-O, delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats cannot be questioned in courts, except on limited grounds of procedural irregularities at the stage of objections. Even then, such challenges cannot be entertained once the final notification is issued.
The Government order dated 12 June 2025 was found to be in consonance with constitutional principles, relying on the 2011 Census, maintaining geographical contiguity, and providing timelines for objections and hearings. The Court found no evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness.
Precedent Analysis
- State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti (1995 Supp (2) SCC 305): Held that delimitation is primarily within government’s domain; courts cannot dictate the method.
- Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission (1967) 1 SCR 400: Notifications of delimitation are final and beyond judicial scrutiny to prevent indefinite delays in elections.
- Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 6 SCC 303: Interference in delimitation under Article 226 would indefinitely delay elections, contrary to constitutional mandate.
- Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo v. Collector, Satara (2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 109): Challenges to delimitation are barred where objections were invited and considered.
- Punjabrao Wadje Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2017): Courts should not derail elections by entertaining such challenges.
- Anant Baburao Golait v. State Election Commission (2022): Writs should not thwart elections; grievances must be pursued through election petitions.
- Anil Chondhe v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2249): Petitioners who failed to file objections cannot later challenge delimitation.
- Dilip Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025): Recent DB decision reaffirming that objections to ward formation raise factual disputes, to be addressed in election petitions.
- Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (C) 19756/2021, SC, 2025): Directed completion of Maharashtra local body elections within 4 months, limiting judicial indulgence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that:
- Interference under Article 226 is extremely limited in electoral matters, particularly post-final notification.
- The petitioners’ grievances involved factual disputes on inclusion/exclusion of villages, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
- Authorities followed the prescribed procedure, invited objections, and provided hearings before issuing final notifications.
- Entertaining the petitions would contravene the Supreme Court’s directions mandating timely elections in Maharashtra.
Thus, no arbitrariness or illegality was found in the ward formation process.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that challenges to ward delimitation cannot be entertained once the final notification is issued. It affirmed that objections were duly considered, and no mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power was demonstrated.
The Court stressed the constitutional mandate:
“Unless petitioners are able to make out a compelling case for interference, this Court would not be inclined to show any indulgence, as it would amount to derailing the election process.”
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the bar under Article 243-O against judicial interference in ward delimitation. It underscores that objections must be raised within statutory timelines, and election petitions remain the proper forum for disputes.
By aligning with Supreme Court’s directives, the Court ensured that long-delayed local body elections in Maharashtra proceed without hindrance, safeguarding democratic governance at the grassroots level.
FAQs
Q1. Can ward delimitation be challenged in High Court under Article 226?
Only in very limited circumstances. Once the final notification is issued, courts cannot interfere except in rare cases of gross illegality.
Q2. What if objections to draft ward formation are ignored?
If objections are ignored before notification, they may be raised. But after final notification, the only remedy is an election petition.
Q3. Why did the Court refuse to interfere despite allegations of arbitrariness?
Because the authorities followed prescribed procedure, objections were heard, and the Supreme Court mandated timely elections, leaving little scope for intervention.