The State Election Commission holds power to postpone elections in exceptional cases, but must exercise this authority prudently and timely to maintain electoral integrity.

ORDER

[Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-

1. Writ Petition No.14420 of 2025 not on board. Taken on board.

2. The present group of petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a common challenge to the decisions of the State Election Commission, Maharashtra ( hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”), by which the commission has postponed the elections of several Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads, and in some cases the elections of selected constituencies within a ward are to be held on 20 December 2025. The impugned decisions were decided on the ground that in several constituencies where the nominations forms of the candidates have been rejected, statutory appeals have not been taken by the competent authority on or before 22 December 2025, and therefore, an opportunity of withdrawal of candidature from the election fray was not possible to be provided to such candidates whose appeal have been allowed and they have been permitted to contest the elections. In few cases the commission has observed that the hearing of the appeal is still not concluded as well as in some cases the written order of the competent authority has not been obtained. The commission has felt that such eventuality thereby deprive such candidates of an adequate and meaningful opportunity to exercise its statutory right of withdrawal.

3. The petitioners have submitted that the action of the Commission postponing the elections at the very fag end of the election process i.e. just 72 hours before the date of voting is an arbitrary act as the Commission was well within the knowledge of the statutory timelines governing scrutiny, appeal and withdrawal of nominations. They assert that the power of postponing the elections is not unguided and must have been exercised in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, the Commission’s conduct is neither proportional nor constitutionally justified.

4. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners by referring to the election programme published on 04.11.2025 submitted that the election programme originally notified contemplated both the contingencies, the cases in which no appeal is filed and the cases where an appeal is filed and decided. The last date for withdrawal of nomination in such cases has also been fixed as on 25.11.2025. It is further argued by the learned advocates appearing for the respective petitioners that Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 and the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules , 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Election Rules) prescribe a structured sequence and filing of nominations, scrutiny, appeal against rejection or acceptance, and withdrawal of nominations. The provisions in the Election Rules also empowers the appellate authority to decide such appeals, however, there is no time prescribe for such decision, but it is expected to take the election programme in consideration and decide the appeal accordingly. The said Election Rules also contemplates the consequences of such decisions upon the subsequent stages of the election. The petitioners, thus, urged that the Commission was conscious that appeals would be instituted and might be decided close to the withdrawal deadline. If that was so, the Commission ought to have devised the calendar of events with foresight. The apprehended contingency of a delayed decision of appeal was a matter which could have been anticipated long before the eve of polling. Yet the Commission having allowed the electoral programme to run its course and intervened at the last minute, thereby postponing elections in some Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads, causing fragment