New Delhi: In a major development, the Supreme Court on May 6 issued an interim order directing that local body elections in Maharashtra, stalled for nearly two years due to disputes over OBC reservation, must be held without further delay. The Court instructed the State Election Commission (SEC) to notify the elections within four weeks and complete the entire process within four months.
The apex court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh, ruled that the elections must proceed based on the OBC reservations as they existed prior to the Banthia Commission's July 2022 report. The Court clarified that this interim direction would be subject to the final outcome of petitions challenging the Banthia Commission’s validity, and the order should not prejudice any party’s arguments.
SC Raises Concerns Over Absence Of Elected Representatives
The bench stressed that the constitutional mandate of grassroots democracy must be “respected and ensured.” Justice Kant raised concerns over the absence of elected representatives, noting that bureaucrats have been running all municipal corporations and panchayats in the interim, making major policy decisions without public accountability.
Questioning Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Maharashtra government, the bench asked why elections could not be held using the existing reservation framework. “You’ve already identified certain OBC groups under the law. Why can’t elections be held on that basis, pending the outcome of litigation?” Justice Kant said, as reported by LiveLaw. The SG concurred that elections should not remain indefinitely stalled.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioner, also supported holding elections but cautioned against implementing the Banthia Commission report, which allegedly de-reserved 34,000 OBC seats. She stressed that democratic bodies across all levels, from gram panchayats to zilla parishads, are being run by unelected officials, violating democratic norms. The Court agreed that exclusion from the current OBC list, even if flawed, would not permanently deny anyone political participation, as elections are periodic.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan raised concerns over the Banthia Commission’s methodology. He argued that it failed to conduct a constitutional study of political backwardness, essential under the Supreme Court’s ‘triple test’ requirement from the Krishnamoorthi judgment. The Banthia panel, he said, merely relied on the social and educational backwardness framework under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), which is insufficient for political reservations.
Despite these issues, all parties agreed that the democratic process must resume. The matter was adjourned briefly to hear the state government, after which the court passed its interim order.
