Back
The on reserved judgment on a crucial question of election law: whether the is bound to hold a when the remainder of a legislative term, after deducting the , falls below one year. A three-judge bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard extensive submissions from all sides before deferring its verdict. The case arose from a order that directed the Election Commission to conduct a for the Pune Lok Sabha constituency, a direction the Commission challenged.
The Core Dispute
At the heart of the matter is
, which mandates that a
to fill a
in Parliament or a state legislature
"shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy."
The provision contains two exceptions: it does not apply if the remainder of the term of the member in relation to the vacancy is less than one year, or if the Election Commission, in consultation with the central government, certifies that it is difficult to hold the
within the prescribed period.
The critical interpretive question is from what point the one-year period under the first exception is to be calculated. The held that the relevant date is the date on which the vacancy occurs. The Election Commission has contended that the six-month period available to it for conducting the must be accounted for before determining whether the applies.
Background: The Pune Vacancy and the High Court Order
The dispute originated from the death of sitting Pune MP Girish Bapat on . The term of the 17th Lok Sabha was due to expire on , leaving more than 14 months from the date of vacancy. The Election Commission declined to hold a , issuing a certificate under Section 151A asserting that it was difficult to conduct the election because of its engagement with preparations for the 2024 general elections and the fact that any candidate elected would serve only a limited tenure.
Pune resident and voter Sughosh Joshi challenged this decision before the , arguing that Section 151A required the vacancy to be filled within six months and that the constituency could not be left unrepresented. On , the High Court directed the Election Commission to conduct the .
The High Court ruled that the
did not apply because the vacancy had occurred on
, and more than one year of the Lok Sabha's term remained on that date. It held that
"the date of occurrence of the vacancy was the only relevant date for determining whether the remainder of the term was less than one year."
The court further observed that the Election Commission could not adopt a "sliding scale" approach, allowing months to pass after a vacancy and then relying on the remaining period as a reason not to conduct the election. It also rejected the argument that administrative inconvenience or preoccupation with other elections constituted "difficulty" under the second exception.
The stayed the High Court's direction in , noting that the interpretation of Section 151A required careful consideration. The factual question concerning the Pune seat is no longer a live issue, as the 17th Lok Sabha completed its term on , and a new Lok Sabha has since been elected.
Parties' Positions
During the proceedings before the , the Election Commission maintained that the one-year period should be considered after accounting for the six-month period available for conducting the . This approach, it argued, would give effect to the statutory timeline while preventing bye-elections for short residual terms.
The respondents, including the original petitioner Sughosh Joshi, challenged this interpretation. They emphasised the and argued that the Election Commission could not effectively extend the six-month deadline by redefining the starting point of the . They also pointed to what they said was the Commission's of Section 151A across different vacancies.
The , represented by Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor General , also made submissions on the legal question.
Next Steps
After hearing arguments from senior counsel , , and for the petitioners, and for the respondents, along with the law officers, the bench reserved judgment. The court permitted the parties to file fresh detailed written submissions within a week.
The 's eventual ruling will settle the interpretation of Section 151A and determine the circumstances under which the Election Commission can lawfully decline to hold a when a legislative seat falls vacant. The decision will have practical consequences for the representation of constituencies across the country and the Commission's .
