Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh SEC to Hold Local Body Elections: Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 440
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can the constitutional mandate for timely local body elections be overridden by ongoing delimitation processes or the need to complete the triple test for OBC reservations? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court emphasized that the constitutional requirement to hold elections every five years cannot be delayed by these processes, ensuring the continuity of local self-governance. This judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, and C.T. Ravikumar, with the opinion authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case arose from a writ petition challenging certain amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. These amendments authorized the State Government to determine the number and extent of wards in local bodies, which the petitioner argued was an overreach of the State Election Commission’s powers. The core issue was the delay in conducting elections for numerous local bodies in Madhya Pradesh, with over 23,000 rural and 321 urban bodies lacking elected representatives for over two years. The State cited the need to complete the triple test formality for providing Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations as the primary reason for the delay. The petitioner, Suresh Mahajan, sought to ensure that the State Election Commission performs its constitutional duty of conducting elections in a timely manner.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court noted that the issues raised in this writ petition were similar to those in a case concerning the State of Maharashtra (SLP(C) No. 19756 of 2021), where the Court had already recognized the need for deeper examination. The Court decided to hear this matter along with the Maharashtra case. The primary concern was the non-conduct of elections in a large number of local bodies in Madhya Pradesh, which was attributed to the State’s failure to complete the triple test formalities required for OBC reservations, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 6 SCC 73]. Despite previous orders, including one on March 3, 2022, the elections were not held, leading to a situation where many local bodies were functioning without elected representatives for over two years.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the constitutional mandate for timely elections to local self-governing bodies. The Court referred to:

• Article 243-E of the Constitution of India: This article specifies that the term of a local body is five years from its first meeting and “no longer.” It emphasizes the need for continuous governance through elected representatives.
• Article 243-U of the Constitution of India: This article also deals with the duration of Panchayats and emphasizes the timely conduct of elections.
• Section 10(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956: This section, along with other similar provisions, was challenged for authorizing the State Government to determine the number and extent of wards, which the petitioner argued usurped the State Election Commission’s powers.
• Sections 12, 23, and 30 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993: These provisions were also challenged on similar grounds as Section 10(1) of the Municipal Act.
• Section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961: This section was also under scrutiny for similar reasons.

The Court also cited the Constitution Bench decision in Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 352], which reiterated the importance of installing a newly elected body before the expiry of the five-year term of the outgoing body.

The Court also referred to its decision in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 6 SCC 73], which laid down the triple test requirement for providing reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in local body elections.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner contended that the amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which authorized the State Government to determine the number and extent of wards, were arbitrary and usurped the powers of the State Election Commission.
• The petitioner emphasized the constitutional mandate for timely elections to local bodies as per Article 243-E and 243-U of the Constitution of India.
• The petitioner argued that the ongoing delimitation process and the triple test requirement for OBC reservation should not be used as excuses to delay elections.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The State argued that the delay in conducting elections was due to the need to complete the triple test formalities as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 6 SCC 73], which is necessary for providing OBC reservations.
• The State contended that the delimitation process and the formation of wards were ongoing and needed to be completed before elections could be held.
• The State submitted that it had constituted a Backward Classes Commission, which had submitted its First Report on May 5, 2022, as the first step towards fulfilling the triple test obligation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:

1. Whether the State Government can delay local body elections by citing ongoing delimitation processes or the need to complete the triple test for OBC reservations.
2. Whether the State Election Commission is obligated to conduct elections even if the triple test for OBC reservation is not completed.
3. Whether the amendments to the State laws authorizing the State Government to determine the number and extent of wards can be a valid ground to delay elections.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to issue the election program within two weeks, using the delimitation of wards as it existed when the elections became due or before the impugned Amendment Act(s) came into force, whichever is later. The Court clarified that the elections should proceed even without the completion of the triple test for OBC reservations. Seats other than those reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were to be notified as General Category if the triple test is not completed. The Court also emphasized that the ongoing delimitation process or the triple test compliance cannot be a reason to delay the election process.

The Court reiterated that the constitutional mandate for timely elections must be upheld. It also clarified that any orders from the High Court or Civil Courts conflicting with this order would be deemed superseded. The Court also clarified that the directions given in this order are not limited to the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra but to all the States/Union Territories.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Article 243-E and 243-U of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized these articles to underscore the constitutional mandate for timely elections and the fixed five-year term of local bodies.
• Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 352]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the importance of installing a newly elected body before the expiry of the five-year term of the outgoing body.
• Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 6 SCC 73]: The Court acknowledged the triple test requirement but clarified that its non-completion should not delay elections.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the constitutional mandate for timely elections to local self-governing bodies. The Court emphasized that the continuity of governance and the democratic process cannot be disrupted by procedural delays or the non-completion of the triple test for OBC reservations. The Court’s reasoning was guided by the following points:

• Constitutional Mandate: The Court repeatedly emphasized the constitutional obligation to hold elections every five years, as enshrined in Article 243-E and 243-U of the Constitution of India.
• Timely Elections: The Court stressed that the process of delimitation or the triple test compliance should not delay the election process. The elections must be conducted promptly to ensure that the newly elected body can take over the reins of administration without any disruption.
• Democratic Governance: The Court highlighted the importance of local self-government by democratically elected representatives. Any delay in elections was seen as a violation of the democratic principles and the rights of the citizens to be governed by their chosen representatives.
• Balance of Interests: The Court sought to balance the need for OBC reservations with the constitutional mandate for timely elections. It clarified that while the triple test is essential for providing OBC reservations, its non-completion cannot be a reason to delay the entire election process.
• Rule of Law: The Court noted that the situation in Madhya Pradesh, where many local bodies were functioning without elected representatives for over two years, was bordering on a breakdown of the rule of law and a violation of the constitutional mandate.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations and the interpretation of constitutional mandates, with less emphasis on the specific factual circumstances of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was a step-by-step process, starting from the constitutional mandate and concluding with the specific directions to the State Election Commission.

The Court considered arguments that the triple test was not completed and that the delimitation process was ongoing. However, it rejected these arguments as reasons for delaying elections, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for timely elections. The Court’s final decision was to direct the State Election Commission to conduct elections without further delay, even if the triple test is not completed, ensuring the continuity of local self-governance.

“The elections have not been held assumedly for the same reason as in the case of State of Maharashtra, namely, the State has still not been able to complete the triple test formalities as predicated in the decision of this Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra.”

“This constitutional mandate is inviolable. Neither the State Election Commission nor the State Government or for that matter the State Legislature, including this Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can countenance dispensation to the contrary.”

“Therefore, we direct the State Election Commission by way of interim order, to issue election programme without any further delay on the basis of the wards as per the delimitation done in the concerned local bodies when the elections had become due consequent to expiry of 5 (five) years term of the outgoing elected body or before coming into force of the impugned Amendment Act(s) whichever is later.”

Key Takeaways

• The constitutional mandate for timely elections to local bodies cannot be overridden by ongoing delimitation processes or the need to complete the triple test for OBC reservations.
• The State Election Commission is obligated to conduct elections even if the triple test for OBC reservation is not completed. In such cases, seats other than those reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be notified as General Category.
• The State Government cannot delay local body elections by citing ongoing delimitation processes or the need to complete the triple test for OBC reservations.
• Delimitation and the triple test are continuous processes that should not impede the timely conduct of elections.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of local self-governance and the need for elected representatives to take over administration without disruption.
• The directions given by the Supreme Court are applicable to all States and Union Territories, ensuring a uniform approach to local body elections across the country.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to:

• Issue the election program within two weeks from May 10, 2022.
• Use the delimitation of wards as it existed when the elections became due or before the impugned Amendment Act(s) came into force, whichever is later.
• Conduct elections without waiting for the completion of the triple test for OBC reservations.
• Notify seats other than those reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as General Category if the triple test is not completed.
• Abide by the directions and observations in this order uninfluenced by any order of the High Court or the Civil Court on the subject of elections of the concerned local self -government.

The Court also directed the State Government to extend adequate logistical support to the State Election Commission for accomplishing the task.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the constitutional mandate for timely elections to local self-governing bodies, as enshrined in Article 243-E and 243-U of the Constitution of India, cannot be delayed by procedural requirements such as delimitation or the triple test for OBC reservations. The Court clarified that while the triple test is necessary for providing OBC reservations, its non-completion cannot be a reason to postpone the entire election process. This judgment reinforces the importance of continuous democratic governance at the local level and ensures that the constitutional obligation to hold elections every five years is upheld.

This judgment clarifies that the triple test formality for OBC reservation cannot be a reason to delay elections, which is a departure from the previous understanding where the triple test was seen as a necessary prerequisite for conducting elections with OBC reservation. The Court has now prioritized the timely conduct of elections over the completion of the triple test, ensuring that local bodies are not left without elected representatives for extended periods.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh is a significant step towards ensuring the timely conduct of local body elections across India. The Court’s directive to the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to proceed with elections without waiting for the completion of the triple test for OBC reservations underscores the importance of upholding the constitutional mandate for continuous democratic governance at the grassroots level. This decision sets a precedent for all States and Union Territories, ensuring that local bodies are not left without elected representatives for extended periods due to procedural delays. The judgment reinforces the principle that the constitutional obligation to hold elections every five years is paramount and cannot be compromised by administrative or procedural hurdles.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

Child Categories:

• Election Law
• Local Self-Government
• Article 243-E, Constitution of India
• Article 243-U, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956

Child Categories:

• Section 10(1), Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956

Parent Category: Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993

Child Categories:

• Section 12, Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993
• Section 23, Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993
• Section 30, Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993

Parent Category: Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961

Child Categories:

• Section 29, Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case?

A: The main issue was whether the State Government could delay local body elections by citing ongoing delimitation processes or the need to complete the triple test for OBC reservations.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to conduct elections without waiting for the completion of the triple test for OBC reservations. The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate for timely elections cannot be overridden by these processes.

Q: What is the triple test requirement for OBC reservations?

A: The triple test requirement, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra, involves setting up a dedicated commission to collect empirical data, specify the proportion of reservation for OBCs local body wise and ensure that the total reservation does not exceed 50% of the total seats.

Q: Can the State Government delay local body elections by citing the ongoing delimitation process?

A: No, the Supreme Court clarified that the ongoing delimitation process cannot be a reason to delay elections. The State Election Commission must proceed with elections based on the existing delimitation when elections became due.

Q: What should happen if the triple test for OBC reservation is not completed before the elections?

A: If the triple test is not completed, the seats (except those reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) should be notified as General Category. The elections should not be delayed for this reason.

Q: Does this judgment apply to all states and union territories?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that the directions given in this order are not limited to the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra but to all the States/Union Territories.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for the common citizen?

A: This judgment ensures that local self-governing bodies will have elected representatives on time, upholding the democratic process and ensuring that local governance is not disrupted by procedural delays. It also ensures that the citizens have a say in their local administration.