HC declines interim relief to sitting councillor in ST women ward row

PANAJI

The High Court refused to stall the election process in a challenge mounted by a sitting councillor against the reservation of his ward for ST Women, declining interim relief on the last day of nominations for the upcoming Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) polls.

Nelson Cabral had sought permission to file his nomination from Ward No 1 -- a seat he has consistently represented -- after it was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) Women following delimitation. The Court has however granted liberty to file appropriate application to amend the Writ Petition with notice to respondents returnable in four weeks.

"The prayer for interim relief is, therefore, rejected. The Petitioner would, however, be at liberty to avail appropriate statutory remedy in the matter, including filing of Election Petition under Section 399 of the City of Panaji Corporation Act, to challenge the election of the successful candidate at an appropriate stage if so advised," it said. 

"Leave to file appropriate application to amend the Writ Petition is granted. Issue notice returnable in four weeks."

Cabral had challenged the reservation, alleging that the delimitation and reservation exercise was carried out in a “fraudulent” manner by shifting 447 voters from another ward to alter its reservation status. He sought either a stay on elections to Ward No 1 alone while allowing polling in other wards to proceed, or, in the alternative, permission to contest from the ward as an interim measure. Tuesday was the final date for filing nominations.

Arguing before the Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamshandekar, the petitioner represented by Senior Advocate Surendra Desai claimed that voters were “imported” from another constituency to artificially declare the ward as an SC/ST seat. “This is a fraudulent exercise to shift people from one ward to another to ensure that a particular ward is declared reserved. The Government or the Goa State Election Commission is aware that unless you import people from other constituencies, you cannot declare this ward as an SC/ST ward... That is what has happened here,” he submitted.

The Bench, however, declined to intervene at this stage, observing that courts would not interfere with the election process in the absence of a clear statutory violation.

“We need solid grounds to stay this. No emotional arguments will work,” the Court remarked, describing the dispute as a “hyper-technical matter”.

The Court also took exception to allegations of political interference raised by the petitioner without impleading the individual concerned.

“Who is that politician? If you make an allegation, you have to make him a party. We are not interested in who is behind the scenes,” the Bench observed, making it clear that “mala fide allegations” cannot be examined unless the person concerned is made a party to the proceedings.

Advocate General Devidas Pangam, appearing for the State, defended the process, submitting that reservation of wards is undertaken by the SEC and not by the government. He pointed out that Ward No 2 had been reserved for ST in the previous term and that Ward No 1 was reserved this time as part of the routine exercise following a comprehensive survey.

He further informed the Court that a draft delimitation notification was issued on January 20, 2026, by the Department of Urban Development, inviting objections between January 21 and January 29 at the offices of the Mamlatdar, Tiswadi, and the CCP Commissioner. The final notification was published on February 2, 2026.

The AG noted that, despite being a sitting councillor, the petitioner did not “bother” to file objections at the draft stage and approached the Court 18 days after the final notification, on the eve of elections. The plea, he submitted, suffered from delay and suppression of material facts.

Terming the allegations “blatantly wrong”, the State urged the Court not to entertain the petition at such a late stage.

While refusing interim relief, the Bench indicated that it would examine whether there had been any violation of statutory provisions in the reservation exercise. It made clear, however, that allegations of mala fides would not be considered unless properly pleaded and supported.