Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA, JJ.
Vikesh Zinta & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Others - Respondents
CWPIL No.32 of 2026
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik and Mr. Bheeshamlata, Advocates, present in person and Mr. Tarun Mehta, Ajay Sipahiya & Mr. Shivam Prashar, Advocates, Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.

Amendments to Panchayati Raj election rules must comply with constitutional provisions, including reservation based on population, not arbitrary criteria, with necessary prior consultation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 243D - Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 124, 125, 183, and 186 - Notification dated 30.3.2026 conferring powers on Deputy Commissioner to change Panchayat roster ultra vires to constitutional provisions - The amendment lacks procedural legitimacy, failing to follow the necessary consultation under law - Court observed that reservations in Panchayati Raj institutions must be based on population criteria, not arbitrary geographical factors - The amendment was found unconstitutional and stayed pending further review. (Paras 32-38)

(B) Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation - Petitioners granted locus as ex-office bearers and electorate in upholding constitutional mandates against contravention by the State. (Paras 8, 36)

(C) Power conferred to the Deputy Commissioner was deemed vague and unguided without statutory backing. (Paras 30, 33)

Table of Content
1. procedural issues regarding panchayat roster changes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. legislative process and public consultation requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. state's authority to amend election rules. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. locus standi of petitioners in public interest litigation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. judicial intervention in electoral processes. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
6. caution and constitutionality in interim relief. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
7. conflicts and constitutionality in amendments to panchayat rules. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
8. directions for compliance and future proceedings. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

CWPIL No.32 of 2026

Notice. Mr. Sushant Keprate, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively and seeks 10 weeks time to file reply.

Reply, as prayed, be filed within 10 weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List for consideration on 22.06.2026, as prayed.

CMP No. 6586 of 2026

Notice and reply in aforesaid terms.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that action of respondents/State in issuing Notification dated 30.3.2026 conferring the powers upon the Deputy Commissioner to change the roster of office bearers of Panchayats upto 5% of total offices in his jurisdiction suffer procedural ultra- virus and substantive ultra-vires and further the action of State is also required to be interferred with because Executive cannot be handed over power to change the roster contrary to the provisions of Constitution as well as Statute enacted in furtherance to the Constitutional provisions and Rules framed thereunder.

3. It has been submitted that Article 243D of the Constitution and Section 125 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provide procedure for reservation of Territorial Constituencies in Panchayats which includes Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad wherein there is no criteria for reservation of the Territorial Constituencies of Panchayat on the basis of geographical and other peculiar conditions but reservation has been mandated to be provided on the basis of population/ratio of population with further direction to rotate the reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, OBC and women in succeeding elections of the Panchayat.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that impugned notification has been issued in haste at the last hour of time granted by the Apex Court to the respondent/State to determine the roster but it appears that in order to create mess and play mischief to all by avoiding the compliance of direction passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court at the last hours Rules have been changed that too by conferring powers upon the Deputy Commissioner to alter the roster of Territorial Constituencies of Panchayat on the basis of unbridled, vague and unguided factors i.e. geographical and other peculiar conditions which are also not the criteria mandated in the Constitution or in provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act for determining the reservation roster.

5. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for parties that notification for amendment in Rules 28, 87 and 88 and Rule 89 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Election Rules proposed to be carried out was notified on 13.3.2026 inviting objections and suggestions from general public as required under Section 186 (3) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and vide Notification dated 21.3.2026 the said amendment was notified by publishing in e-Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh with observations that no objection and no suggestion had been received within stipulated period. He further submits that matter does not end here, as, thereafter, respondent/State issued Notification dated 30.3.2026 in supersession of Notification dated 21.3.2026 (published in Rajpatra on 23.3.2026) on the ground that objections received with regard to proposal