INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Gradually promoting the Constitution’s promise of a democratic system, the Hon’ble Manipur High Court ruled that the State law, Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which intended to prolong the tenure of the elected Panchayat members beyond the specified five-year period, was null and void. It not only implied violation of democratic norms and part IX of the Constitution but also the directive issued to continue elected official’s service by holding fresh elections.
The whole issue arose from the proposed amendments that the State of Manipur made, which, in effect, postponed Panchayat elections and enabled the present members to carry on their work. The move was met with resistance due to it conflicting with Article 243E of the Constitution, which clearly defines that Panchayat institutions shall function for five years, at which point new elections shall be held. The Petitioners argued that by prolonging the terms of office through legislation, they had become less accountable to the electorate.
KEY POINTS
- The Panchayati Raj system was first recognized as a legal institution in India with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment in 1992. The Constitution in Part IX explains the characteristics of the Panchayat, its period of existence, and management. First, Article 243E sets no council shall exceed a maximum term duration of five years counting from the day of its first meeting. Moreover, it provides that elections for constituting a Panchayat must be held within six months of its dissolution or before the end of its term. Such an agreement in no way provides a space for any legislative or executive discretion to be prolonging the length of the Panchayat’s terms.
- The petitioners argued that such an incident was a violation of the people’s Constitutional right to elect their representatives at specific intervals and the continuation of the term without the conduct of new elections. They were of the opinion that no authority could bypass this necessity by postponing the elections and that democracy was very much dependent on a consistent renewal of authority. The State, however, answered these contentions by bringing a host of problems among which administration and law and order are only some of the reasons why elections could not be held in time. So, they suggested that it was not only them that could guarantee a good government but also the choice to keep them in office until the elections were conducted safely and securely rather than setting new Panchayats in office.
- The High Court on its part dealt with the issue by saying that the Panchayati Raj system is the sideline of grassroots democracy in India. The officials responsible for the matter were very categorical stating that no political or executive power overstepping could have a negative effect either on democratic functions at the village level or on the way they operate. Mandated by the Constitution article 243E, the court pronounced that the five-year term is compulsory and cannot be extended by a regular state law.
- Moreover, the Court made it clear that the concept of free and fair elections is at the core of the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The issue of cutting down representative democracy by laws is not minor or negligible, which, although slightly, delays the elections and allows the incumbents to stay in office without a new mandate.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Hon’ble Supreme Court has given various decisions that emphasized the necessity of free and fair elections as the cornerstone of democracy and the Constitution. In the case of Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad (2006), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that local body elections must be conducted as scheduled and administrative problems cannot be cited as a reason for the delays. Similarly, in the instance of State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh (2021), the Hon’ble Court once again clearly stated that it is not permissible to extend the terms by delaying elections.
CONCLUSION
The State Election Commission has been given a green signal, thus, to act without delay in organizing Panchayat elections after the Manipur High Court dismissed the disputed legislation, in other words, the Commission was ordered to hold the election as soon as possible. The verdict has made it clear that the democratically elected official’s time in office is regulated by the Constitution and is not a matter of convenience.
The decision is far-reaching for Indian States. Local self-government is the cornerstone of participatory democracy, while any alteration of election schedules is likely to trigger a loss of public trust in constitutional governance. By annulling the act, the Manipur High Court has emphasized; in both letter and spirit; that there is no leeway for Constitutional provisions on democratic processes.
The Court decision is history made, and an electoral account and constitutional democracy are two of the most important results. By charring the attempts to extend the tenancy of Panchayat members as unconstitutional, the court has not only reaffirmed the democratic ethos of periodic elections but also made it practically difficult for any State that would try to do so in the future by similar means.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By- Anwesha Anant
