HC rebukes Rajasthan govt over delay in panchayat polls, seeks compliance from state EC

Jaipur- In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court delivered a stern rebuke to the state government for delaying Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI) elections under the pretext of delimitation and has directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary and the State Election Commission for immediate compliance.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order after hearing 17 petitions filed by Mahavir Prasad Gautam and others. The court observed that the failure to conduct elections within the prescribed timeframe amounts to a direct violation of the Constitution. It emphasized that local body elections must be held within five years of the previous term, and any postponement cannot exceed six months. Justice Dhand stated that if the government fails to conduct elections on time, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of the State Election Commission to intervene and restore democratic local governance.

The court warned that the absence of elected local representatives creates a governance vacuum and adversely affects public service delivery. The court also addressed the issue of suspended Panchayat administrators. Petitioners argued that after the term of elected Sarpanchs ended, the state government had issued a notification on January 16 appointing them as administrators due to election delays.

However, they were later removed without a proper inquiry or hearing. Petitioners argued that the government’s actions violated the Constitution, the Panchayati Raj Act, and the Municipality Act. The court found the removal to be procedurally flawed and ordered the reinstatement of the administrators, allowing the government to take action again -- if necessary -- only after following due legal process. The state government contended that the petitioners had no constitutional right to continue as administrators once their five-year term had ended and that investigations were pending. However, the court sided with the petitioners on the grounds of procedural impropriety in their removal. (IANS)