The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) strongly criticised the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) for postponing several local body elections just three days before the scheduled polling date. The Court termed the SEC’s conduct an instance of “avoidable administrative impropriety,” stressing that such abrupt changes undermine fairness and public confidence in the electoral process.
The SEC had postponed elections in 24 out of 288 local bodies, citing pending appeals related to rejected nomination papers and administrative difficulties in maintaining a uniform result schedule. It planned to hold elections in two separate phases and declare results on different dates. Petitioners challenged this approach, arguing that the SEC should have anticipated issues related to appeals and nomination processes while preparing the election timetable. The Court agreed that these were foreseeable contingencies and should not have led to last-minute disruptions.
While the Court refrained from setting aside the SEC’s postponement orders, it issued key safeguards to ensure uniformity and fairness. It directed that counting of votes and declaration of results for all local bodies—both those where elections progressed as planned and those postponed—must be done only after polling for the rescheduled bodies is completed. Accordingly, all results must be declared together on or after December 21. This direction prevents the SEC from releasing results in phases, which the Court considered unfair.
The bench also criticised the SEC for allowing elections to proceed in some constituencies within a ward while postponing others, calling the practice arbitrary and unjustified. The Court emphasised that the SEC’s power to postpone elections is not absolute and must be exercised with transparency, consistency, and a clear rationale.
To avoid similar issues in the future, the Court ordered the SEC to formulate and publish comprehensive guidelines within ten weeks. These guidelines must detail how the Commission will handle predictable challenges such as appeals against nomination decisions, symbol allotment issues, and the withdrawal process while framing election schedules.
Overall, the Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that the conduct of elections must be marked by fairness, preparedness, and adherence to constitutional standards, ensuring that administrative lapses do not compromise the democratic process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.