The Allahabad High Court has observed Gram Pradhans cannot be allowed to continue functioning as administrators for an indefinite period, adding that the state government has no authority to dilute the constitutional powers of the State Election Commission through executive action or legislation.
Stressing that every panchayat has a fixed tenure of five years under the Constitution, the Court said fresh elections must be completed before that term expires.
It also ruled that the constitutional scheme governing panchayats does not permit the state government to postpone elections indefinitely.
The observations came from Justice Siddharth while hearing a petition filed by Arvind Rathore. The petitioner challenged the government orders dated May 25 and May 26, 2026, and sought a direction to the state to place before the court a definite schedule for conducting the three-tier panchayat elections in accordance with Articles 243E and 243K of the Constitution of India.
The Court found, prima facie, that the impugned government orders were founded on Section 12(3-A) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to issue the government orders, even though the Court had already invalidated the provision.
In view of the above, the Court observed that the orders appeared to be non est, meaning, thereby, they had no legal existence.
Defending its stand, the state government submitted that the controversy was already pending in another writ petition (Ashish Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, P.I.L. No. 559 of 2026) and that elections had been delayed because the Commission constituted to determine reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) had not yet submitted its report.
The Court, however, expressed surprise over the prolonged delay, pointing out that the Commission had been constituted pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court in Writ-C No. 981 of 2019 (Vikas Kishan Rao Gavli vs. State of Maharashtra).
The State Election Commission informed the bench that the electoral rolls had been published on June 10, 2026, and that it was ready to conduct the elections.
According to the commission, the process could not move forward only because the state government had not provided the required administrative and logistical support.
Considering the rival submissions, the bench permitted the impleadment of the OBC Commission and directed the state government to file a detailed affidavit, enclosing the commission’s report and specifying a clear timeline for the panchayat elections.
The Court described it as the State’s final opportunity to do so. The bench also warned that if the directions were not complied with, the officer concerned would have to appear personally before the court and explain why government orders had been issued under a statutory provision that had already been declared unconstitutional by a division bench of the court.
The Court observed that such conduct could, at least prima facie, amount to contempt of its earlier judgment.
The matter has been directed to be listed for further hearing on July 13, 2026.
Case: Arvind Rathore vs State of U.P. and Others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 23749 of 2026
Date of Order: 25.06.2026
Status: Pending
