The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea challenging the October 16, 2026 deadline for Manipur Panchayat elections, citing the High Court's binding directions.
Imphal, July 3: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a petition challenging the extension of the deadline for conducting Panchayat elections in Manipur until October 16, 2026, observing that the Manipur High Court had already directed the State Election Commission to complete the electoral process within the stipulated timeframe.
A Bench comprising Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice N.V. Anjaria, sitting as a partial working days Bench, heard a plea seeking modification of the High Court's earlier order, which had permitted the State Government and the State Election Commission to hold Panchayat elections on or before October 16.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that elected Panchayat representatives had demitted office in 2022 and that the democratic mandate had effectively expired nearly four years ago.
The petitioner further submitted that despite repeated assurances before the courts, the State had failed to conduct the elections within the timelines it had earlier indicated.
The counsel also challenged the repeated appointment of Administrative Committees in place of elected local bodies, contending that the practice violated Article 243E of the Constitution, which guarantees a five-year tenure for Panchayats and envisages timely elections.
According to the petitioner, the State could not indefinitely replace elected Panchayats with Administrative Committees.
The plea also questioned the High Court's decision permitting the constitution of Administrative Committees for Zilla Parishads by invoking Section 109 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, which deals with the removal of difficulties.
The petitioner argued that Section 92 of the Act provides only for the appointment of an Administrator in specified circumstances and does not authorise the formation of Administrative Committees for Zilla Parishads.
The petitioner also sought a fresh undertaking from the State Government before the Supreme Court, assuring that Panchayat elections would be conducted on or before October 16, 2026.
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the request, submitting that the High Court's order itself was binding on the State and that requiring an additional undertaking would unnecessarily expose the government to contempt proceedings if unforeseen circumstances affected the election schedule.
The Bench declined the petitioner's request for such an undertaking, observing that the High Court had already addressed the principal grievance by fixing a deadline for completion of the election process.
The Court noted that the petitioner's rights were adequately protected by the existing directions requiring elections to be held within a specified period.
Refusing to interfere with the High Court's order, the Supreme Court clarified that if the State failed to comply with the directions or acted contrary to law, the petitioners would be free to seek appropriate legal remedies before the competent forum.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was accordingly dismissed.
