Allahabad HC Calls UP Panchayat Election Deferral Orders ‘Nonest’, Warns of Contempt Over Use of Struck-Down Provision

Justice Siddharth Nandan found two May 2026 orders deferring Gram Panchayat elections were passed under a provision already declared unconstitutional, and threatened personal appearance of the issuing officer if a satisfactory affidavit is not filed.

The Allahabad High Court, on 25 June 2026, declared two State Government orders dated 25 May 2026 and 26 May 2026 “apparently nonest” because they were issued under Section 12(3-A) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — a provision that a Division Bench of the same court had already found to be unconstitutional. Justice Siddharth Nandan, sitting singly in Court No. 73, directed the State to file a detailed affidavit disclosing the report of the OBC Commission, if any, and a clear time-frame for holding the three-tier Panchayat elections. The judge warned that if the affidavit is not filed, Respondent No. 2 — the officer who signed the 25 May 2026 order — must appear in person, and that a prima facie case of contempt of the Division Bench's ruling may be drawn against him.

The Orders Under Challenge

Petitioner Arvind Rathore, represented by Shri Pawan Kumar Shukla holding the brief of Shri Imtiaz Husain, challenged two orders: one dated 25 May 2026 passed by Respondent No. 2, and a consequential order dated 26 May 2026 passed by Respondent No. 3. Both orders were passed purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 12(3-A) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

The writ petition sought a writ of certiorari quashing both orders, and a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 4 — the State Election Commission — to place on record a detailed, time-bound schedule for completing the entire three-tier Panchayat election process in compliance with Article 243E and Article 243K of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench Ruling on Section 12(3-A)

Counsel for the petitioner drew the court's attention to Pram Lal Patel v. State of U.P., reported in 2000 LawSuit ALL 290, in which a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court examined Section 12(3-A) of the Act and found it to be in violation of Article 243E and Article 243K of the Constitution.

The Division Bench in that case had reasoned that Article 243E fixes the term of a Panchayat at five years from the date appointed for its first meeting, and the words “shall” and “no longer” leave no room for extension. The constitutional mandate is that an election to constitute the next Panchayat must be completed before the expiry of the five-year duration. No Panchayat can function beyond that period.

On Article 243K, the Division Bench had held that superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all Panchayat elections is vested exclusively in the State Election Commission. The State Legislature cannot enact a law that encroaches upon that field or that effectively nullifies the powers of the State Election Commissioner. The Division Bench had found that the substitution of clause (3) in Section 12BB of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act — through the impugned Ordinance examined in that case — did precisely that: it allowed the State Government to issue election notifications with only consultation of the Election Commissioner, rather than leaving that power entirely with the Commissioner.

The Division Bench had concluded that the entire Ordinance was ultra vires Articles 243E and 243K, and that any attempt by the State Government to nullify a constitutional provision by Ordinance deserved depreciation. That view was fortified by a Karnataka High Court ruling in Professor B.K. Chandrashekhar and Another v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1999 Karn 461.

The State's Position: OBC Commission Report Pending

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submitted that a similar controversy was already before the court in PIL No. 559 of 2026 (Ashish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Others). In that matter too, the State's stand was that since the Government of U.P. had appointed an OBC Commission to determine reservation aspects for the OBC category in Panchayat elections, the elections of Gram Pradhan and Members of Gram Panchayat could not be held until the Commission submitted its report, because the reservation decision would form part of the election process.

Justice Nandan noted that the OBC Commission had been appointed in pursuance of directions of the Supreme Court in Writ-C No. 981 of 2019 (Vikas Kishan Rao Gavli v. State of Maharashtra), but that the Commission had not submitted its report till date. The court described this as “surprising.”

State Election Commission: Electoral Rolls Ready, Logistics Awaited

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission informed the court that the electoral roll had already been published on 10 June 2026. The Commission stated it was in a position to hold the elections and that the State Government needed to provide the necessary logistics. The impediment to holding elections, the Commission's counsel submitted, was the State Government's stand on the pending OBC Commission report.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Nandan examined the impugned orders dated 25 May 2026 and 26 May 2026 and found that both were passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(3-A) of the Act, 1947. Since that provision had already been held unconstitutional by a Division Bench of the same court, the orders passed under it were, on the face of it, nonest — having no legal existence.

The court observed that because the orders were nonest, the Pradhans could not be permitted to continue as administrators. The continuation of Pradhans in an administrative capacity beyond the constitutionally mandated five-year term, under orders passed invoking a struck-down provision, was directly at odds with the constitutional scheme affirmed in Pram Lal Patel.

The court also flagged the conduct of Respondent No. 2 specifically. The officer had issued the 25 May 2026 order under a provision that a Division Bench had already declared unconstitutional. Justice Nandan directed that the personal affidavit to be filed by Respondent No. 2 must explain the circumstances under which those orders were issued. If no satisfactory explanation is offered, the court indicated it could treat the conduct as a prima facie contempt of the Division Bench's decision.

Directions Issued

Justice Nandan permitted the petitioner's counsel to implead the OBC Commission as a party respondent to the writ petition.

As a last opportunity to the State Government, the court directed it to file a detailed affidavit bringing on record the report of the OBC Commission, if any, along with other details clearly disclosing the time-frame within which the elections shall be held.

The court specified that if this affidavit is not filed, Respondent No. 2 shall be present before the court on the next date. The personal affidavit of Respondent No. 2 must explain the circumstances under which the impugned orders were issued, given that the provision relied upon had already been declared unconstitutional. Failure to do so, the court stated, could be construed as a prima facie contempt of the Division Bench's ruling.

Order

The matter has been listed for hearing on 13 July 2026 at 2:00 PM. The impugned orders dated 25 May 2026 and 26 May 2026 have been treated as nonest. The OBC Commission is to be impleaded as a party. The State Government must file a detailed affidavit on the OBC Commission's report and the election time-frame before that date, failing which Respondent No. 2 must appear in person and face the possibility of contempt proceedings.