Courts can’t intervene once panchayat poll notification is issued: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court ruled that once the State Election Commission issues a panchayat poll notification, courts cannot interfere under Article 243-O. While noting flaws in reservation allocations, the Bench said elections cannot be stalled and any vacant posts must be re-notified later
Hyderabad: Justice Sam Koshy and Justice Chalapathi Rao of the Telangana High Court on Thursday made it clear that courts cannot step into the election process once the State Election Commission issues a notification for panchayat polls.
The Bench was hearing a batch of petitions questioning the reservation pattern in several villages, including Mahmudapatnam of Warangal district, where three ward seats and the Sarpanch post were reserved for the ST community despite there being only six ST voters in the entire panchayat.
Also Read
The Bench observed that Article 243-O of the Constitution bars judicial interference after an election notification is issued. Even if the petitioners’ concerns carry some merit, the court said intervention is possible only before notification or after the elections conclude. Interference at this stage, it noted, would disrupt the entire electoral process.
While the court found that the SEC had not properly factored in minimum population norms while allocating reservations for Sarpanch and ward seats, it clarified that this defect cannot be a ground to halt the polls.
The Bench directed that if, after the completion of the election process, any Sarpanch or ward posts remain vacant due to absence of eligible candidates from the reserved category, the State Election Commission must hold fresh elections in consultation with the government.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that they were not seeking a stay on elections, but only wanted the reservation pattern corrected. They pointed out that relying on the 2011 census for SC/ST population was irrational, especially after the bifurcation of the State in 2014. In some villages, they said, the reservation is such that only one person falls outside the reserved category, making the conduct of elections practically impossible.
The State Election Commission submitted that it only followed the reservation percentages notified by the State government and that the 2011 census remains the only available demographic basis for SC/ST reservations. The Commission argued that any disruption now would derail the election schedule. If polls cannot be held for certain seats due to lack of eligible candidates, the SEC said it would revisit them later in consultation with the government.
After hearing all sides, the Bench concluded that while the reservation exercise could have been handled more carefully, the court cannot stall the democratic process at this stage.
