Courts Cannot Redraw Electoral Maps at the Cost of Democracy — Bombay High Court Dismisses 26 Writ Petitions Challenging Ward Formation Ahead of Zilla Parishad Elections

“If Courts intervene in every ward boundary dispute, no election will ever be held. The Constitutional bar under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG is loud and clear.” – In a decisive and constitutionally grounded judgment of Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y.G. Khobragade, dismissed 26 writ petitions challenging the final notifications of ward formation and delimitation of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis across various districts of Maharashtra. These petitions raised grievances about inclusion/exclusion of villages, procedural fairness, and alleged political bias in the delimitation process.

However, the Court firmly reiterated the constitutional bar under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG, emphasizing that election-related delimitation decisions are not open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, except in the narrowest circumstances, such as denial of a hearing during the draft stage.

“Judicial Interference Must Not Stall Democracy” – Court Upholds Final Notifications to Preserve Election Schedule Mandated by Supreme Court

The judgment was passed in the lead matter, Writ Petition No. 10237 of 2025 (Abhijeet S/o Diliprao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), along with 25 connected petitions, all challenging delimitation and ward formation notifications issued in August 2025 in anticipation of upcoming Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s order in Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (C) No. 19756/2021), dated 6 May 2025, which mandated that elections be conducted within four months, the High Court observed:

“We are conscious of the fact that if we lightly interfere in such matters, it would result in derailing the entire election process.” [Para 99]

The Court thus concluded that no judicial indulgence could be shown unless petitioners could clearly demonstrate violation of procedure or malice – which, it held, none had done.

Ward Formation, Once Finalized After Hearing Objections, Cannot Be Reopened in Writ Jurisdiction

The Court exhaustively surveyed constitutional provisions — particularly Articles 243-C, 243-K, 243-O, and 243-ZG, along with Article 329(a) — and reaffirmed the settled legal position that:

“Delimitation of Panchayat areas or formation of constituencies and allotment of seats cannot be challenged in courts, except where no objections were invited or no hearing was granted.” [Paras 4–6, citing State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti, (1995 Supp 2 SCC 305)]

Further, it underscored that the Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently refused to entertain writ petitions challenging delimitation, unless fundamental procedural norms are violated — a threshold not crossed in any of the present petitions.

Final Notifications Followed Proper Procedure Under Govt. Order Dated 12.06.2025 — No Malice or Arbitrariness Found

The Court scrutinized the State Government’s Order dated 12 June 2025, which laid down a uniform, time-bound procedure for finalizing electoral divisions, based on:

• 2011 Census data

• Geographical contiguity

• Zig-zag movement from North to South

• Avoidance of splitting Gram Panchayats

• 10% population deviation tolerance

• Natural boundaries like rivers and highways

Holding that the Divisional Commissioners and District Collectors had adhered to these norms, the Court ruled:

“The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate arbitrariness or malice on the part of the respondent authorities while dynamically applying the guidelines.” [Para 98]

It noted that objections were heard, reasons recorded, and maps evaluated before final notifications were issued. These formed a complete administrative record, which the Court held sufficient to ward off any allegation of illegality.

Judicial Review Under Article 226 Not Appellate in Nature — Factual Issues Must Be Raised Through Election Petitions

Emphasizing that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority over administrative decisions involving electoral geography, the Bench observed:

“Inclusion or exclusion of villages is a matter within the domain of the respondent authorities... This Court cannot tinker with inclusion or exclusion in writ jurisdiction.” [Paras 28, 43, 70, 95]

The Court reiterated its earlier views (including Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo v. Collector, Satara and Anant Baburao Golait v. SEC) that factual disputes must be agitated through election petitions, not writ jurisdiction.

Petitioners’ Failures: Delayed Objections, No Procedural Violation, Mere Political Allegations

The Court was also critical of petitioners who:

• Did not raise objections at the draft stage but challenged only the final notification [Paras 11, 29]

• Alleged political bias but provided no concrete evidence of mala fides [Paras 36, 55]

• Attempted to reopen settled boundaries based on electoral inconvenience [Paras 30, 50]

“Belated challenges raised after final notification and close to election schedules cannot be entertained. Otherwise, no election will ever be held.” [Para 11, relying on Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 6 SCC 303]

Petitions Dismissed District-Wise — From Nanded, Beed, Hingoli, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Others

The High Court rejected all 26 petitions, covering grievances across multiple districts, including:

• Hingoli (Kalamnuri)

• Ahilyanagar (Jamkhed)

• Nanded (Mahur, Loha, Kandhar, Degloor)

• Beed (Kaij, Ashti)

• Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Phulambri)

• In each case, the Court found that:

• Hearing was granted

• Population balance was maintained

• Geographical factors were considered

• Government guidelines were broadly followed

Constitutional Bar Enforced to Protect Electoral Timelines and Local Self-Governance

In its concluding observations, the Court emphasized that judicial restraint in electoral matters is essential for preserving the constitutional mandate of timely elections under Part IX of the Constitution.

“The concern of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for expeditiously conducting the elections to the local bodies that have been languishing in the State of Maharashtra, is evident… It is all the more necessary that election process proceeds further in a timely manner.” [Para 99]

Accordingly, all writ petitions and pending applications were dismissed, clearing the way for the State Election Commission to proceed with notifying and conducting the elections without further judicial delay.

Date of Decision: 19 September 2025