Himachal Pradesh High Court Flags Last Minute Panchayat Reorganisation; Quashes Inclusion Of Village In Different Gram Panchayat

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the inclusion of a village in a different Gram Panchayat pursuant to a notification issued by the State Government.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma observed: “… we fail to understand that when 5 years’ term of Panchayati Raj Institutions has already expired and respondents are bound by mandate of the Constitution, reiterated by Courts, including Apex Court, with direction to complete election process latest by 31.05.2026, then why respondents are venturing in large scale reorganization and constitution of Wards/Panchayati Raj Institutions, which has not been done on time. Such a commission on the part of the State may cause to draw adverse inference about intention. Respondents-State should not undertake such an exercise, which may be considered a delaying tactic or procrastination, as due to paucity of time, decisions taken in haste are leaving lacuna, intentional or unintentional, warranting scope of interreference in judicial review”.

Advocate Prem Chand Verma appeared for the petitioners, while Anup Rattan, Advocate General, appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitioners challenged a notification dated 27.01.2026, whereby Village Manlog Badog was excluded from Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog and included in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat.

It was contended that objections submitted by residents against the proposed reorganisation were not considered before the issuance of the final notification. The petitioners asserted that the village was geographically contiguous with Hanuman Badog, with strong social, economic and day-to-day linkages, and that its inclusion in Darlaghat would cause inconvenience.

The respondents justified the action by stating that the reorganisation was carried out under Section 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, after inviting objections and considering administrative convenience, geographical considerations and public interest.

It was also contended that objections were not filed within the prescribed time and that the process of delimitation and reorganisation was underway in compliance with directions to complete elections by 31.05.2026.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the factual matrix and found that the decision to reorganise the Panchayat was not based on relevant considerations such as contiguity, distance, population and convenience.

It noted that the villages in question were contiguous and connected through a direct Panchayat Road, and that the actual distance between them was significantly less than what was projected by the State.

In this regard, the Court found that the method adopted by the State to calculate distance was irrational and observed: “Measurement of the distance between the two villages in this manner is definitely unreasonable and irrational, and it amounts to measuring the distance between Himachal Bhawan and Haryana Bhawan, which are located at a distance of less than 500 mtrs., by measuring the same via Connaught Place or calculating distance between Shimla and Solan via Bilaspur”.

The Court further noted that population distribution also did not justify the reorganisation, as a relatively smaller village was being merged into a much larger Panchayat without any rational basis. The Court also examined the material relied upon by the State and found that the decision was based on outdated resolutions and representations, ignoring the present ground realities and improvements in connectivity.

The Court held that the exercise undertaken by the authorities was contrary to the factual matrix and observed: “it is apparent that the impugned action of the respondents in excluding Village Manlog Badog from Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog and including it in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and contrary to the factual matrix on the spot. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned notification deserves to be set aside”.

The Court also dealt with the objection regarding judicial interference in delimitation matters and referred to the decision in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (2024) to reiterate that “If judicial intervention is deemed completely barred, citizens would not have any forum to plead their grievances, leaving them solely at the mercy of the Delimitation Commission. As a constitutional court and guardian of public interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary to the Court’s duties and the principle of separation of powers”.

The Court clarified that although courts ordinarily refrain from interfering once the election process has commenced, intervention is permissible at an appropriate stage where illegality or arbitrariness is demonstrated.

The Court also took note of the timing of the reorganisation exercise and expressed concern that such actions, undertaken close to the election schedule, may result in hasty decisions and procedural irregularities. It cautioned that the State should not undertake such an exercise, which may be considered a delaying tactic or procrastination, warranting the scope of interference in judicial review.

The Court further emphasised that Panchayati Raj Institutions are grassroots institutions and that factors such as local connectivity, social ties and convenience must be given due importance in any reorganisation exercise.

Upon a comprehensive consideration, the Court held that the impugned notification could not be sustained.

Conclusion

The Court set aside the notification dated 27.01.2026 to the extent it excluded Village Manlog Badog from Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog and included it in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat, along with consequential delimitation.

The State was directed to undertake a fresh exercise of the constitution and delimitation in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Nehru Yuva Club of Village Manlog-Badog & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:6374)

Appearances

Petitioners: Prem Chand Verma, Varun Thakur and Aakash Thakur, Advocates

Respondents: Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General

Click here to read/download Judgment