The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a series of petitions from various individuals across Maharashtra. These petitions contested the final notifications regarding ward formation for the upcoming Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections. The court firmly stated that any intervention at this stage would disrupt the electoral process, which the Supreme Court has already mandated to be completed within a four-month timeframe.
The numerous petitions had targeted the State of Maharashtra (through its Rural Development Department), the State Election Commission, Divisional Commissioners, District Collectors, Sub-Divisional Officers, Tahsildars, Zilla Parishads, and Panchayat Samitis in several districts.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade delivered a unified judgment, addressing pleas filed by citizens from Hingoli, Ahilyanagar (formerly Ahmednagar), Nanded, Beed, and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar districts.
The Bench underscored that Article 243-O of the Constitution expressly prohibits judicial interference in matters concerning ward formation and seat allocation. The Judges clarified that such challenges could only be considered in the most exceptional circumstances – for instance, if no objections were invited or no hearings were conducted – and certainly not once the election process is underway.
“This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be reluctant to easily intervene with the final notification given the Constitutional bar on interfering in such matters,” Justice Pitale noted in the judgment.
The petitioners had alleged arbitrary inclusion and exclusion of villages during the ward formation for the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections. They claimed that objections raised by residents were either overlooked or rejected without adequate consideration.
However, the Court concluded that proper procedure had been followed. It pointed out that draft notifications were published, objections were invited, hearings were conducted, and detailed reasons were documented before the ward boundaries were finalized.
“A proper hearing was granted, and for reasons recorded in writing, the objections were addressed, and the final notification was issued,” the Bench observed. The Judges further added that disputes over the attachment or detachment of villages were “purely disputed questions of fact” which could not be examined in writ proceedings, but rather only through election petitions.
The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s May 6, 2025, order in the case of Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra. This order had directed that long-pending local body elections in the state must be completed within four months, and that OBC reservations be reinstated to their pre-2022 framework. Emphasizing the critical urgency of these polls, the Bench stated, “Unless the petitioners are able to present a compelling argument for intervention, this Court would not be inclined to grant any leniency, as it would effectively derail the process of elections to local bodies in the State of Maharashtra.”
Highlighting the broader constitutional objective of local self-governance, the court remarked, “The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of holding elections in a democracy, to ensure that local self-government, as envisioned by the Constitution, is established as soon as possible.”
With the dismissal of all petitions, the State Election Commission is now free to proceed with announcing and conducting the long-delayed Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections throughout Maharashtra.