The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a petition which prayed for a direction upon the respondents to notify the election of the Municipal Corporation, Municipality, and Nagar Panchayat. The court ruled that local body elections, as mandated by the Constitution, must not be delayed, emphasizing the importance of the democratic process and rejecting the notion that "triple test formalities" for OBC seat reservations must be completed before conducting elections and ad hoc appointment of an administrator is a temporary arrangement that should not be prolonged.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the state to immediately notify the election process for Nagar Panchayat, Jamtara, as its term is scheduled to expire in May 2023 and further prayer has been made that if the elections are not notified and could not be held before the expiry of the term of the Nagar Panchayat, the seating members be allowed to function till the fresh elections are held. In another Writ Petition, prayer has been made for a direction to hold an election of Ranchi Municipal Corporation in view of the mandate under Article 243(U) of the Constitution of India and Section 16(4) and 20 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, since five years term of the elected body has already expired and further prayer has been made to quash the notification whereby administrator has been appointed for administering the activities of the municipality, after expiry of the term of the elected members.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that as per Article 243(U) of the Constitution, municipalities should continue for five years, and before the term's expiry, the Election Commission and the State should have taken steps to notify elections. It is further contended that in Jharkhand, despite the long-expired terms of elected bodies, neither the State Election Commission nor the Government has made serious efforts to conduct timely elections for Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Nagar Panchayat. It is argued that leaving these democratic pillars under the administration of a State-appointed Administrator goes against the constitutional mandate of empowering people to elect their representatives and Section 16(8) of the Municipal Act, 2011, provides for dissolution if elections aren't held within the specified period, emphasizing that this provision is temporary and shouldn't be allowed to persist indefinitely due to the government's failure to conduct elections on frivolous grounds. It is further argued that the government's reluctance to notify elections is an attempt to control the system through their chosen individuals, which is impermissible in a democratic setup.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that local body elections cannot proceed without identifying seats reserved for OBCs through the "triple test formalities," emphasizing that conducting elections without OBC reservations would lead to problems and deprive the OBC community and a dedicated commission has been established to perform the triple test formalities, collecting empirical data for proper decision-making on OBC seat reservations and the State Backward Class Commission is already tasked with this work, and it is further contended that this process will take some time before elections can be declared. It is argued that the appointment of an administrator complies with the law and the State Election Commission recommended holding elections for Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Nagar Panchayat twice, but the State failed to perform its duty of notifying the elections, even after initially notifying and later cancelling the election notification.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that Article 243(R) provides for the composition of municipalities and as per the said provision, all seats in municipalities shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the municipal area and for which municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards, and Article 243(S) provides for constitution and composition of Wards Committees, etc. and Article 243(T) provides for reservation of seats. Duration of Municipalities is provided under Article 243(U) of the Constitution. It provides that every municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. The only exception is if the municipality is dissolved prior to the aforesaid period.
The court further observed that the municipality must consist of elected persons. This process is democratic as the seats are to be filled up by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the municipal area. This democratic process is the lifeline of the country, which cannot be throttled. Any delay in the election or deferring the same on frivolous grounds amounts to destroying democracy. The State by no stretch of the imagination can delay this democratic process, especially when the State Election Commission has already recommended for holding such an election. It is the constitutional mandate to hold such an election and no one can defy the same even by indirect means.
The court stated that in Suresh Mahajan Vs. State of M.P., the Supreme Court held that the Election should be notified even if the “triple test formalities” have not yet been completed and it is not sine qua non to conclude the “triple test formalities” before holding elections for a local body. It is thus clear that elections can be held even if “triple test formalities” are under process and/or have not yet been completed. Non-completion of the “triple test formalities’ for identifying seats to be reserved for OBCs is not at all grounds to defer or delay the election of local self-government. The court further stated that the ad hoc system of appointment of an administrator in terms of Section 16(8) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 is absolutely a temporary arrangement and this temporary arrangement cannot be allowed to continue for long. Thus, it is more important to hold the election at the earliest.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Rina Kumari and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1923 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Binod Singh, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shahabuddin, Mr. Gaurav Raj, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
