I. Introduction

India’s Constitution establishes a comprehensive framework for democratic governance at the national, state, and local levels. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1993 marked a significant milestone by granting constitutional status to local self-governments, thereby ensuring their continuity through regular elections and promoting citizen participation in governance. However, despite these provisions, recent developments have raised serious concerns about the erosion of this democratic framework, particularly when judicial stays or administrative inefficiencies lead to delays in local elections.

A critical issue that often gets overlooked in these delays is that the constitutional requirement for holding local elections within six months of the dissolution of local bodies—or before the expiration of their term—is non-negotiable. This is not merely a legal formality but a fundamental constitutional mandate that can only be altered through a constitutional amendment. Even the highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court, does not have the power to stay or delay these elections unless such an amendment is made. Let’s examine whether such delays constitute a direct violation of the Constitution, threatening the very foundation of democratic governance in India.

II. The Constitutional Framework for Local Self-Government Elections

The Constitution of India, through Articles 243E and 243U, mandates that elections for local self-government institutions must be held every five years. This constitutional stipulation is unequivocal: elections must be conducted before the expiration of the term of the existing body, ensuring that a newly elected body assumes office immediately thereafter. In situations where a local body is dissolved or a new one is created, the Constitution mandates that elections must be held within six months.

This six-month rule is crucial because it ensures that governance at the local level remains democratic and representative. Any failure to adhere to this timeline is not merely an administrative lapse but a constitutional violation. The Constitution does not grant any authority, including the judiciary, the power to extend this six-month window. In other words, even the Supreme Court cannot grant a stay on local elections unless the Constitution is first amended. This makes the timely conduct of local elections an imperative, not just in legal terms but also in the very fabric of democratic governance.

III. Judicial Interventions and the Case of Maharashtra

A prominent example of constitutional non-compliance in local elections can be observed in Maharashtra. Due to legal disputes over political reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), local self-government elections have been delayed in the state. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled on the procedure for implementing OBC political reservations, directing states to follow a three-step process, including population-based proportional reservation and adherence to the 50% cap on total reservations. Maharashtra struggled to comply with this directive, which led to the postponement of elections in several local bodies.

While the Supreme Court’s intervention was aimed at ensuring fair political representation, it also resulted in delays that contradicted the constitutional mandate. In July 2022, after a report on OBC reservations was submitted, the Court lifted its stay on elections. However, disputes related to ward delimitation and reservation systems have continued to stall the electoral process, leaving local bodies without elected representatives.

These judicial interventions, though intended to rectify legal ambiguities, should not override the Constitution’s explicit directive that elections must be completed within six months, irrespective of other ongoing disputes. As it stands, the Court’s actions in these cases risk undermining the constitutional principle of timely elections, highlighting the need for legislative clarity on handling such disputes without violating the fundamental democratic mandate.

IV. Constitutional Obligations and the Role of State Election Commissions

Article 243K of the Constitution places the responsibility for conducting local elections on State Election Commissions (SECs). These bodies are entrusted with ensuring the timely and fair conduct of elections. Yet, in many cases, SECs have struggled to enforce this schedule, citing reasons such as administrative delays, judicial stays, and political disputes. However, the constitutional mandate remains clear: no authority can delay these elections beyond the six-month window or allow an expired local body to function without a newly elected body. The role of the SECs must be reinforced to ensure that these constitutional obligations are met, irrespective of external pressures.

The case of Maharashtra illustrates how SECs have allowed elections to be postponed under the guise of administrative challenges, such as reservation disputes and delimitation issues. This failure to adhere to the Constitution threatens the very foundation of democratic decentralization. The delays, even when authorized by judicial bodies, cannot stand as they contradict the unequivocal constitutional timeline.

V. Governance in the Absence of Elected Representatives

The failure to conduct timely elections creates a significant governance gap, with local bodies being run by administrators instead of elected representatives. While the Constitution allows for administrators to take charge temporarily, this period cannot exceed six months. Any extension beyond this timeframe is unconstitutional. In practice, however, many local bodies continue to operate without elections, with administrators retaining control well beyond the constitutionally permissible period.

The absence of elected representatives at the local level has far-reaching consequences. It deprives citizens of their democratic right to be governed by individuals they have elected, while also creating an accountability vacuum. Unelected administrators do not have the same level of direct accountability to the public as elected representatives, leading to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and potential abuse of power.

As Lord Acton warned, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The unchecked power of administrators, in the absence of elected oversight, poses a significant risk to governance at the grassroots level. The Constitution seeks to avoid this situation by mandating regular elections, ensuring that the power rests with elected representatives who are accountable to the people.

VI. Conclusion

The constitutional mandate for regular local elections is non-negotiable. Elections must be conducted before the expiry of the local body’s term, and any dissolution must be followed by elections within six months. This is not merely a procedural requirement—it is a constitutional obligation that cannot be waived or delayed without an amendment to the Constitution itself. Even judicial bodies like the Supreme Court are bound by this mandate and cannot grant stays that contravene this fundamental principle.

Delays in conducting local elections, whether due to judicial stays, administrative inefficiencies, or political disputes, undermine the constitutional framework and erode the very essence of democracy. The State Election Commissions must uphold their constitutional duty to ensure that elections are conducted in a timely manner, irrespective of external challenges. Failure to do so is not only a breach of legal duty but a violation of the democratic rights of citizens.

In a nutshell, timely conduct of local self-government elections is a constitutional imperative that serves as the bedrock of India’s democratic system. Any deviation from this, even by the judiciary, without a constitutional amendment, threatens to erode the foundation of democratic governance and should be rectified with urgency. The Constitution’s directives must be respected and upheld, for without them, the democratic fabric of the nation is at risk of unraveling.

-Mahesh Zagade, IAS(rtd)