The legal dispute centers on whether the Disaster Management Act can justify delaying constitutionally mandated Panchayat elections, whose tenure expired on January 31.
The High Court ruled that disaster-related orders cannot override Article 243-E of the Constitution and directed the State Election Commission to hold elections by April 30.
The state government contends that severe infrastructure damage, pending delimitation, and insufficient time to finalise reservation rosters make elections impractical, a move sharply criticised by the opposition BJP as anti-democratic.
For how long can the Disaster Management Act, 2005 be used to defer Panchayat elections in Himachal Pradesh, when such elections are a constitutional obligation on the state? This question is now before the Supreme Court after the Himachal Pradesh government challenged the High Court’s order directing that elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions and urban local bodies be held by April 30.
The dispute has deepened the stalemate, with the state government maintaining that elections cannot be conducted as long as the Disaster Management Act, invoked following severe monsoon-related disasters such as cloudbursts, flash floods and landslides, remains in force.
Himachal Pradesh witnessed its worst natural calamities in 2025, with significant loss of life, after which the entire state was declared a disaster-affected area. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 has remained in force since then.
The state’s advocate general, Anoop Rattan, confirmed that a Special Leave Petition has been filed in the apex court regarding this, which is likely to be listed for hearing shortly. A special leave petition has been filed in this regard by the Principal Secretary of Urban Development, the Secretary of Panchayati Raj, and the Chief Secretary.
It was on January 9, the Himachal Pradesh High Court passed orders directing the state government and the Election Commission to conduct the Panchayat elections by April 30.
The orders were passed on a PIL raising the constitutional point that the elections to PRIs and urban local bodies can’t be deferred indefinitely on the pretext of the Disaster Management Act 2005, when all related functions of the government were being conducted normally.
Moreover, the term of the PRIs has already expired on January 31, and it was mandatory on the part of the state government and the State Election Commission to conduct the elections within six months.
The Advocate General, however, said that after the High Court order, different opinions have emerged on the finalisation of the roster for the reservation of the wards. It is very important to clarify the interpretation of the law.
After the High Court, Chief Minister Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu had termed it "arbitrary and lacking proper legal interpretation," especially given that the Disaster Management Act, 2005, was still in force in the state. He questioned whether the Disaster Act had become “infructuous” and said the government will take further legal action, including seeking clarification on how the Disaster Act should be interpreted in this context.
The Special Leave Petition raises two main grounds. First, it argues that the Division Bench gave the state government only four days to publish the Panchayat election reservation roster, which it terms unreasonable, especially as another Bench had allowed three months in 2021 to invite objections after the roster was issued.
The state has also said that widespread damage to roads and infrastructure due to natural disasters made it impossible to hold elections, and that reorganisation and delimitation of some Panchayats are still pending. The High Court, however, ruled that the Disaster Management Act cannot obstruct the functioning of constitutional authorities such as the State Election Commission. It directed the State Election Commission, Panchayati Raj Department and Urban Development Department to resolve their differences and work together under the Commission’s guidance.
Citing Article 243-E of the Constitution, the High Court held that Panchayat elections must be held before the end of the five-year term and that disaster-related orders cannot override this constitutional mandate.
On January 31, the Himachal Pradesh government dissolved elected Panchayati Raj Institutions across the state after their tenure expired and appointed administrative committees to run gram panchayats, panchayat samitis and zila parishads until elections are held. The opposition BJP has strongly criticised the government’s decision to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Leader of the opposition Jairam Thakur has accused the government of attempting to derail the democratic process. This clearly proves that the Congress government does not want to hold elections and is afraid of facing the people.
