HP HC quashes Panchayat delimitation rule 9(2) amendment, calls it ‘Manifestly Arbitrary’
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Dec 5,
Ahead of the forthcoming Panchayati Raj elections in Himachal Pradesh, the High Court on Friday struck down the State Government’s amendment to Rule 9(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, and set aside all subsequent delimitation notifications, including that issued by the State Election Commission. The Bench held that the January 2025 amendment—substituting Sabha area with Panchayat Samiti area as the unit of delimitation—was unconstitutional, irrational, and unsupported by any lawful justification.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma allowed the petition filed by Devinder Singh Negi, observing that the amended rule had produced drastic population disparities between Zila Parishad constituencies. The Court recorded that delimitation under the amended rule had created constituencies ranging from 6,372 population in Kawar to 37,899 in Kotkhai—a variation the Court termed impermissible under Section 89(2) of the Act. As the judges stated, “creation of Zila Parishad Wards with population ranging from 6,000 to 37,000… is not permissible,” noting that such wide deviations were a direct fallout of the rule change.
The judgment underscores that the amendment was introduced not to advance constitutional objectives but merely to ease administrative work for Returning Officers. Referring to the Government’s own justification, the Court noted that the rule was modified because ROs and AROs found it inconvenient to collect counting sheets from different blocks. This, the Bench held, could never be the basis for altering the architecture of delimitation. “Amendment had not been proposed for maintaining the ratio of population… but for the difficulty being faced by the Returning Officers,” the Court observed, making it clear that administrative comfort cannot override constitutional standards.
The State’s own actions further undermined the legitimacy of the amendment. The Court highlighted that soon after enforcing the amended rule, the Government proposed a proviso authorising Deputy Commissioners to transgress Panchayat Samiti boundaries to deal with population imbalance—directly contradicting the amendment itself. Calling this contradiction “mutually destructive,” the Bench held that the Government had acted with “non-application of mind… at the time of carrying out amendment in Rule 9(2).”
The Court also faulted the State for failing to comply with Section 186(3) of the Panchayati Raj Act. Although the amendment was published in draft form, the State placed no material to show that it had been laid before the Legislative Assembly, rendering it unenforceable. As the Bench held, “for want of laying the amendment on the table of Legislative Assembly, the amendment carried out in Rule 9(2) cannot be enforced.”
The Court categorically rejected the State’s reliance on Article 243-O and Section 182 to bar judicial review, citing recent Supreme Court authority that allows intervention where the delimitation process is arbitrary, unconstitutional or mala fide. As the Bench reiterated, “Power of judicial review is basic fundamental feature of the Constitution… Any action… not passing the test of constitutional mandate can be struck down… especially when arbitrariness and patent illegality is manifest.”
The judges also noted that elections were not imminent, delimitation was still in progress across several districts, and the Government itself had continued to reorganize blocks even after the Model Code of Conduct had been invoked. In these circumstances, the Court held that its intervention would not disrupt the electoral process.
Bringing the matter to a close, the High Court declared the amendment to Rule 9(2) unconstitutional, nullified all notifications issued under it, including the SEC’s notification, and restored the original position under which Sabha area remains the basic unit for delimitation. The authorities have been directed to undertake the delimitation afresh in accordance with the Constitution and the Panchayati Raj Act.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
