Allahabad High Court Directs State Election Commission To Complete Village Panchayat Elections Within 3 Months With Existing 27% OBC Reservation

The Court, however, held that OBC-reserved seats cannot be treated as open merely because the Dedicated Commission’s inquiry remains pending.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions seeking directions to finalise the electoral rolls and conduct panchayat elections within a fixed period. Some petitions also challenged Sections 12(3-A) and 12BB(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, concerning temporary administration and notification of election dates, respectively.

A Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad directed: “The State Government and the State Election Commission shall proceed forthwith with the preparatory steps, issue the election programme, and complete the elections to the village panchayats in the State of Uttar Pradesh, within three months from the date of this judgement. The schedule shall provide for the steps necessary to constitute the elected bodies within the above-prescribed period.”

The Bench added: “The State Government and the State Election Commission shall conduct the entire elections under the existing reservation arrangement, including twenty-seven per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes. The elections shall not be conducted by treating the OBC-reserved seats as open seats merely because the Dedicated Commission's inquiry remains pending. Reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women shall be maintained in accordance with the applicable laws, subject to the aggregate ceiling governing vertical reservation.”

Senior Advocate Ashish Kumar Singh and other counsel appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Samir Sharma assisted the Court as amicus curiae. Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal appeared for the State, Senior Advocate Tarun Agarwal represented the State Election Commission, and Senior Advocate Shashi Nandan represented the Dedicated Commission.

Background

The previous panchayat elections were conducted in 2020, and the five-year term of the elected bodies expired in May 2026. Although the State Election Commission began preparing the electoral rolls in July 2025 and revised the programme subsequently, the election process did not progress after June 2026.

The State constituted a Dedicated Commission on May 18, 2026, to conduct a contemporaneous empirical inquiry into the political backwardness of OBC communities. Pending that exercise, the elections were deferred and administrators were appointed under Section 12(3-A).

The petitioners submitted that the inquiry could not override the constitutional obligation under Article 243-E to hold elections before the expiry of the panchayats’ term. The State contended that the Commission’s report should be awaited because its empirical findings could affect the existing 27% OBC reservation.

Court’s Observations

Pending Inquiry Cannot Postpone Elections

The Court observed that Article 243-E fixes a panchayat’s tenure at five years and requires the succeeding election to be completed before that period expires. It clarified that the six-month period under Article 243-E concerns premature dissolution and does not extend the tenure of a body that has completed its full term.

Referring to Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Bench noted that the Supreme Court had treated adherence to the election timetable as mandatory and had declined to permit unfinished delimitation, ward formation or the triple-test exercise to delay elections.

The Court held: “This is a long drawn exercise and awaiting its final outcome, the constitutional mandate to hold local self government/body elections cannot be deferred. A reasonable wait for a report in terms of time so as to honour the verdict of the Supreme Court may be justified but of course, if such a dedicated Commission can justify its measures in obtaining empirical data and its genuineness in a given case.”

The Bench further held that Article 243-E and Section 12(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act impose a mandatory election timetable. Neither the State Government nor the State Election Commission could defer elections beyond the expiry of the full term merely to await the Commission’s report.

Commission’s Report Is Only The Evidentiary Basis

The Court explained that the Commission’s report would not, by itself, alter the reservation arrangement. The State would have to examine its evidence, reasons and local-body-wise recommendations before determining the appropriate reservation and implementing it through the legally prescribed process.

The Bench observed: “The Commission's report is the evidentiary basis for the State's reservation determination; it is not itself that determination. The triple test requires the State to specify the proportion for each local body in the light of the recommendations. The State must therefore examine the evidence, the reasons for the proposed proportion and its conformity with the statutory and constitutional limits before making the order applicable to the elections.”

The Court added that empirical justification and legal authority must both exist. A recommendation stating a percentage would not answer whether the inquiry justified that percentage or whether the existing law authorised its implementation. Recommendations exceeding the present statutory or regulatory scheme would require appropriate legislative or rule-making action.

The Bench further observed that the Commission’s material had not prima facie demonstrated the empirical assessment and local-body-wise justification required by the Supreme Court. It nevertheless clarified that this did not mean the Commission could never produce a sound report. Its eventual findings were left open for examination.

Existing Reservation Arrangement To Govern Present Elections

The Court held that the Commission’s unfinished inquiry and the subsequent process of examining and implementing its recommendations could not keep the elections pending.

The Bench stated: “The State cannot keep elections pending throughout this process. The existing reservation arrangement is to continue for these elections while the inquiry and the subsequent legal steps proceed separately.”

The Court consequently directed that the elections proceed with the existing 27% OBC reservation, alongside the applicable reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. The aggregate ceiling governing vertical reservation must also be observed.

The Court separately rejected the challenge to the appointment of outgoing Pradhans as administrators. It also rejected the plea to declare Sections 12(3-A) and 12BB(3) unconstitutional, while expressly noting that the pleadings and arguments were insufficient for a fuller examination of the vires challenge.

Conclusion

The Court allowed the petitions insofar as they sought time-bound elections and directed the State to provide the staff, funds, security and logistical assistance required by the State Election Commission. It clarified that the three-month election period would not extend an administrator’s tenure beyond the statutory limit.

The Dedicated Commission was permitted to continue its inquiry. After receiving its report, the State must examine the recommendations and undertake the statutory steps or amendments required for their lawful implementation.

Cause Title: Dashrath Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Along With Connected Matters

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ashish Kumar Singh, assisted by Advocates Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava, Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, Raghav Arora and Raj Kumar Singh; Advocate Samir Sharma (Amicus Curiae)

Respondents: Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, assisted by Additional Chief Standing Counsel A.K. Goyal; Senior Advocate Tarun Agarwal, assisted by Advocates Prakhar Saran Srivastava and Satyendra Kumar Singh; Senior Advocate Shashi Nandan, assisted by Advocate Udayan Nandan

Click here to read/download Judgment