HP High Court Bars MLAs from Voting in Municipal President Elections, Stays Urban Development Clarification

A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held, prima facie, that Ex-officio Members — MLAs — have no right to vote in elections for President and Vice President of Municipalities under HP law, and has stayed a 2023 government clarification that had suggested otherwise.

On 4 June 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma, disposed of three interlocutory applications in connected writ petitions, holding on a prima facie reading of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015 that Members of the Legislative Assembly, who are Ex-officio Members of Municipalities, are not entitled to cast votes in elections for the President and Vice President of those bodies. The Bench simultaneously stayed a clarification dated 13 July 2023 issued by the Urban Development Department, which had taken the contrary position. The direction operates subject to the final outcome of the main petitions.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Three sets of petitioners — Vandana Kumari & Others, Sanjay Chauhan, and Nandini Sood & Others — approached the High Court by way of writ petitions challenging, among other things, the participation of MLAs as voters in the election of Presidents and Vice Presidents of Municipalities in Himachal Pradesh. The interlocutory applications sought interim injunctions restraining Ex-officio Members from casting votes in those elections.

The State and the State Election Commission appeared through the Advocate General, Mr. Anup Rattan, along with the Additional Advocate General and Deputy Advocates General. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Anshul Bansal, Senior Advocate, with a team of advocates. Mr. Surinder K. Sharma appeared for the State Election Commission.

The constitutional validity of Section 10(3) of the MC Act, 1994 — which grants voting rights to Ex-officio Members — was separately assailed in CWP No.8682 of 2026. The Bench made clear that the constitutional question would be decided in the main petition; the present order addressed only the interim prayer.

The Legal Question

The central issue was whether an MLA, eligible to be an Ex-officio Member of a Municipality under Article 243R of the Constitution and Section 10 of the MC Act, 1994, is entitled to vote specifically in the election of the President and Vice President of that Municipality.

Article 243R(2)(b) of the Constitution permits a State Legislature to provide, by law, the manner of election of the Chairperson of a Municipality. The MC Act, 1994 and the Election Rules, 2015 are the relevant instruments in Himachal Pradesh. Section 10(3) of the MC Act grants voting rights to Ex-officio Members, but — as the Bench observed — without specifying the occasions on which that right may be exercised.

The Advocate General argued that restraining an MLA from voting would amount to staying a valid statutory provision and would be contrary to the constitutional mandate. He also raised delay, submitting that Section 10(3) had been on the statute book for 26 years without challenge.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Bench identified three categories of Municipal Members under Article 243R and Section 10 of the MC Act: Elected Members, Ex-officio Members, and Nominated Members. Nominated Members are expressly debarred from voting. Ex-officio Members have a voting right under Section 10(3), but the Bench found that right to be context-specific.

The analysis turned on the scheme of Chapter IX of the Election Rules, 2015, which governs the election of President and Vice President. Rule 2(d) defines “Chairman” as any Member of the Municipality elected as President by the elected Members. Rule 89, the Bench held, is the substantive provision for the election of President: it requires nomination by an “Elected Member” as proposer, seconded by another “Elected Member”, and fixes the quorum at three-fourths of total “Elected Members”. Rule 90, which uses the word “Member” rather than “Elected Member” when describing the poll, was read in context of Rule 89 and construed to mean Elected Members only.

Rules 91 and 92 reinforced this reading. Rule 91 applies the same procedure to the election of Vice President. Rule 92 provides that a requisition for a No Confidence Motion must be signed by not less than a majority of total “Elected Members”. Section 25 of the MC Act mirrors this: a No Confidence Motion against the President or Vice President must be signed and carried by a majority of “Elected Members”.

From this, the Bench drew a principle: the person who has the right to elect also has the right to remove, and vice versa. Since the right to remove is confined to Elected Members, the right to elect must be similarly confined. The non-inclusion of Ex-officio Members from the category of Electors in Chapter IX was treated as their express exclusion from the election process for President and Vice President.

The Bench accepted that Ex-officio Members do have voting rights in ordinary Municipal meetings. Sections 28, 30, 31 and 32 of the MC Act use the word “Member” without qualification, and Section 32 provides that all questions before a Municipal meeting shall be decided by majority of Members present. Section 49 similarly extends voting rights to all Members in Committee meetings. The Bench held that these provisions operate in a different sphere from the specific election process governed by Chapter IX of the Election Rules.

The Advocate General's reliance on four precedents was addressed and distinguished. Promila M. v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2016 (NOC) 332 (Kar)) turned on the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act's definition of “Councilor” and a provision that the “Corporation shall” elect the Mayor, which was read to include all voting Members. The HP Act contains no equivalent provision. Rajkumar Jaiswal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3047), upheld by the Supreme Court, rested on the Rajasthan Act's definition of “eligible Member” and “whole number”, which expressly included Ex-officio Members. Sultan Ali & Anr. v. Shahjaha & Ors. (WA Nos.200299-300/2015, Karnataka), also upheld by the Supreme Court, depended on Section 52(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act conferring an express statutory right on all Members to vote on any matter. Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi & Ors. ((2004) 5 SCC 409) addressed the definition of “whole number of Members” for the purpose of computing the two-thirds strength required for a No Confidence Motion. None of these provisions, the Bench found, had equivalents in the HP statute and rules.

The Bench also addressed the Urban Development Department's clarification dated 13 July 2023, which had relied on an opinion of the Law Department to conclude that Ex-officio Members could vote in President and Vice President elections. Rule 87 of the Election Rules, 2015 specifically provides that in case of any question with respect to interpretation of the Rules, the opinion of the State Election Commission shall be final. No such opinion had been obtained before the clarification was issued. The Bench found the clarification to be self-contradictory, contrary to the MC Act and Rules, and issued without competence.

On the Advocate General's submission that the Rules cannot override the Act, the Bench held there was no conflict: the Rules do not take away any right of Ex-officio Members to vote where they have that right, but they regulate the specific manner of election of President and Vice President in a manner consistent with both the MC Act and Article 243R(2)(b).

The Bench also recorded its view on legislative intent: Municipalities are local self-government institutions, and the exclusion of Ex-officio Members from the election of President and Vice President reflects the legislature's intent to preserve the supremacy of the people's mandate at the local level. Including MLAs as electors to those offices would, in the Bench's view, amount to interference in the autonomy of local self-government.

Outcome

The Bench directed that elections of President and Vice President of Municipalities in Himachal Pradesh be conducted by permitting only Elected Members to vote, without any right of Ex-officio Members (MLAs) to cast votes in that process. The direction operates subject to the final outcome of the main writ petitions and may be altered, modified, or vacated on motion.

The operation of the clarification dated 13 July 2023 issued by the Urban Development Department was stayed.

All three applications were disposed of in these terms. The constitutional validity of Section 10(3) of the MC Act, 1994, challenged in CWP No.8682 of 2026, remains to be adjudicated in the main petition.