1. Application to proceed with local body elections based on a commission report on reservations for backward classes and prior delimitation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1559
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Rahul Ramesh Wagh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
SLP (C) No(s). 19756 of 2021
Decided On : 20-07-2022
Important Points
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for prompt and lawful completion of the election process for local bodies, emphasizing the importance of complying with the recommendations and directions provided by the Court.
Subject
Election Law - Local Body Elections
Act Referred
Headnote
Election Commission - Local Body Elections - Amendment Act - [I.A. No. 92695 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 19756 of 2021 and I.A. No. 93235 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 238 of 2022] - [No specific act sections referenced]
Fact of the Case:
The State of Maharashtra sought permission for the Election Commission to proceed with the election process for remaining local bodies based on the report of the Dedicated Commission for Reservation for Backward Class of Citizens in Local Bodies of Maharashtra. The intervenor raised concerns about the delimitation process and sought to stall the election program until the entire delimitation process as per the Amendment Act is completed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the Election Commission and State authorities to ensure the election process for the remaining local bodies is immediately commenced in accordance with the recommendation made by the Dedicated Commission. The intervenor's application was rejected, and liberty was granted to challenge the correctness of the report before an appropriate forum.
Issues: The issues revolved around the election process for local bodies, compliance with the delimitation process, and the intervention seeking to stall the election program.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for prompt action by the Election Commission and State authorities to complete the election process for local bodies without further delay. The Court declined to accept the intervenor's submission to stall the election program based on concerns about the delimitation process.
Final Decision: The interlocutory applications filed by the State of Maharashtra and the intervenor were disposed of, with the Election Commission and State authorities directed to proceed with the election process for the remaining local bodies. The intervenor's application was rejected, and liberty was granted to challenge the correctness of the report before an appropriate forum.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advocate, Mr. G.K. Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Advocate, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate, By Courts Motion, Advocate, Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Advocate, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Advocate, Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Advocate, Mr. G. Ananda Salvam, Advocate, Mr. Mayilsamy K., Advocate, Mr. Ram Sankar, Advocate, Mr. Sanchit Maheshwari, Advocate, Ms. Lakshmi Ramamurthy, Advocate, Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, Advocate, Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Advocate, Mr. Govind Karwa, Advocate, Mr. Mohit Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Omkar Deshpande, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Chirag Shah, Advocate, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. K.M. Natraj, Ld. ASG, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Ld. AAAG, Mr. Bharat Singh, Ld. AAG, Mr. D.S. Parmar, Ld. AAG, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate, Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Seth, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Seth, Advocate, M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, Advocate, Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate, Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate, Ms. Sregurupriya, Advocate, Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advocate, Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, Advocate, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Vinay N., Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shirang B.V., Advocate, Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Kishor Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Thakur, Advocate, M/S. Lambat & Legiteam, Advocate, Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Advocate, Mr. Firdos T. Mirza, Advocate, Mr. Purshottam B. Patil, Advocate, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Advocate, Ms. Prapti Allagh, Advocate, Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Anant Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Raghav Ramkaran, Advocate, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. B.A. Wadhmare, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Rajora, Advocate, Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Advocate, Ms. Sweta Sand, Advocate, Mr. N. Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Signh, Advocate, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Pranav Saigal, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Sabarwal, Advocate, Ms. Manini Roy, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu, Advocate, Ms. A. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth B., Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Advocate, Ms. P. Kar, Advocate, Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advocate, Mr. G.K. Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Advocate, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate, By Courts Motion, Advocate, Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Advocate, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Advocate, Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Advocate, Mr. G. Ananda Salvam, Advocate, Mr. Mayilsamy K., Advocate, Mr. Ram Sankar, Advocate, Mr. Sanchit Maheshwari, Advocate, Ms. Lakshmi Ramamurthy, Advocate, Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, Advocate, Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Advocate, Mr. Govind Karwa, Advocate, Mr. Mohit Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Omkar Deshpande, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Chirag Shah, Advocate, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Mr. K.M. Natraj, Ld. ASG, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Ld. AAAG, Mr. Bharat Singh, Ld. AAG, Mr. D.S. Parmar, Ld. AAG, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate, Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Seth, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Seth, Advocate, M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, Advocate, Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate, Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate, Ms. Sregurupriya, Advocate, Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advocate, Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, Advocate, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Vinay N., Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shirang B.V., Advocate, Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Kishor Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Thakur, Advocate, M/S. Lambat & Legiteam, Advocate, Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Advocate, Mr. Firdos T. Mirza, Advocate, Mr. Purshottam B. Patil, Advocate, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Advocate, Ms. Prapti Allagh, Advocate, Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Anant Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Raghav Ramkaran, Advocate, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. B.A. Wadhmare, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Rajora, Advocate, Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Advocate, Ms. Sweta Sand, Advocate, Mr. N. Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Signh, Advocate, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Pranav Saigal, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Sabarwal, Advocate, Ms. Manini Roy, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu, Advocate, Ms. A. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth B., Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Advocate, Ms. P. Kar, Advocate, Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. State seeks permission to proceed with elections; intervenor seeks to stall elections until delimitation under the Amendment Act is completed. (Para 2 , 6 , 8 )
3. Apprehensions regarding lack of representation are premature without specific evidence; overdue elections must not be delayed. (Para 7 , 11 )
4. Election processes for overdue local bodies should proceed based on existing court directions and commission recommendations to avoid further delay. (Para 4 , 8 , 11 )
5. State's application allowed to proceed with elections; intervenor's application to stall elections rejected. (Para 4 , 9 , 12 )
6. Can local body elections be stalled pending the completion of a delimitation process under an Amendment Act?
No, the court declined to stall the election programme, emphasizing that overdue elections cannot brook further delay and must proceed in accordance with law and previous court directions. (Para 8 , 11 )
7. What is the standard for challenging the representation of specific areas in local body elections?
Apprehensions regarding lack of representation are considered premature unless a specific case is brought to demonstrate that a particular area or local body would be denied representation. (Para 7 )
8. How should the Election Commission proceed with elections when a commission report on reservations is available?
The Election Commission and State authorities must ensure the election process commences immediately in accordance with the recommendations of the Dedicated Commission and existing court directions. (Para 4 )
ORDER
I.A. No. 92695 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 19756 of 2021 and I.A. No. 93235 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 238 of 2022
1. This order disposes of two interlocutory applications namely, I.A. No. 92695 of 2022 filed by the State of Maharashtra and I. A. No. 93235 of 2022 filed by the intervenor.
2. It is prayed by the State of Maharashtra that since the Dedicated Commission for Reservation for Backward Class of Citizens in Local Bodies of Maharashtra has submitted its report on 07.07.2022, after complying with the necessary enquiries for arriving at the proportion for providing reservation for Other Backward Class category local body-wise, the Election Commission be permitted to proceed with the election process of the remaining local bodies on that basis.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission has pointed out that as of today, election programme in respect of 367 local bodies has already commenced and the same will be continued and taken to its logical end, in due course.
4. As regards the remaining local bodies, referred to in the chart filed with the status report, we direct the Election Commission and all the State authorities to ensure that the election process in respect of each of these local bodies is immediately commenced in accord with the recommendation made by the Dedicated Commission; and is taken forward on the basis of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2022, including the following:
"....Accordingly, the election programme of such local bodies must proceed and the State Election Commission is obliged to notify the election programme within two weeks from today in respect of such local bodies including to continue with the process from the stage as on 10.3.2022, on the basis of the delimitation done prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act(s) w.e.f. 11.03.2022...."
We restate that position and express sanguine hope that the concerned authorities and, in particular, the Election Commission would complete the election process in respect of the remaining local bodies in accordance with law in right earnest keeping in mind the spirit of the mandate of the Constitution of India in that regard.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have no objection for issuing the above directions but have prayed for liberty to challenge the correctness of the stated report before appropriate forum on the grounds as may be permissible in law. We have no difficulty in giving liberty to the parties to do so.
6. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor was at pains to persuade us to reconsider the direction given on 04.05.2022 reproduced above. He submits that the Election Commission and the State authorities are not taking necessary measures to ensure that the areas affected by delimitation done prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act would get representation in the concerned local bodies.
7. This apprehension is premature. No specific case is brought before us to demonstrate that any particular area or local body would be denied representation in the concerned local body.
8. The relief claimed in the application by the intervenor, to say the least, is to direct stalling of the election programme until the entire delimitation process as per the Amendment Act is completed. We decline to accept this submission. We say so because the order (s) passed on the earlier occasion by this Court, have dealt with all aspects and yet issued direction to the Election Commission and State authorities as referred to earlier.
9. Accordingly, intervenor application stands rejected.
10. Needless to observe that if the intervenor has filed any writ petition before the High Court, the same would abide by the directions given by this Court in passing interim directions, if required, only in-furtherance of order(s) of this Court and not inconsistent therewith in any manner.
11. Even if the petitioners before the High Court have any grievance, that can be dealt with appropriately, as a
