PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa directed the State government and the State Election Commission to issue a Notification appointing the date for holding of elections to 186 Panchayats, whose terms have expired or due to expire shortly, within three days as well as complete the process within 45 days.
The orders of the High Court were issued, after it rejected the Goa government’s contentions that it had taken a “conscious decision” to hold the panchayat polls in September in view of the ongoing monsoon season.
“The monsoons, a yearly feature in Goa, cannot be elevated to the level of ‘a natural calamity’... merely because there may have been some flash floods or even cyclones in the past. Monsoons generally cannot afford an excuse for defying the constitutional mandate in Article 243-E,” a bench of Justices M S Sonak and R N Laddha, ruled.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam had told the court that Goa receives rainfall of about 110 to 120 inches during the monsoons. “In the past, there have been cyclones and floods. The Government staff and machinery are involved in disaster management. Therefore, with all responsibility, the State Government has taken a ‘conscious decision’ to hold the elections in September 2022,” Adv Pangam said.
The Director of Panchayats even went to the extent of submitting that “on account of the rains, there are chances of the paper being spoiled or the ink being smudged, etc. when the voter handles the ballot paper while voting in the election.”
“With respect to the Director, we think that this trivialises the constitutional mandate described by the Supreme Court as inviolable,” the High Court observed.
The High Court however rejected the state government’s pleas and ruled that holding of timely panchayat polls was an inviolable constitutional duty.
“This is the fourth instance in the last two decades when the State Government and the SEC have avoided or failed to comply with the constitutional mandate in Article 243-E. The delay and consequent defiance of the constitutional mandate have become a regular feature. The attempt is to bring about a situation of fait accompli, emboldened by the fact that not even the most powerful Court can turn the clock back or recoup the lost time,” the High Court observed.
“There are no reported instances of any action against those responsible for the defiant breaches of the constitutional mandate. In most instances, the SEC would meekly toe the line of the State Government and plead helplessness,” the Court added.
“Neither the SEC nor the State Government or, for that matter, the State Legislature, including the Supreme Court, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can countenance dispensation to the contrary. These are phrases employed in the Judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasize the mandatory nature of the constitutional provision. We think it is too far-fetched for the State Government to contend that Section 15 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act or Rule 10 of the Election Procedure Rules, 1996, empowers it to postpone the Panchayat elections beyond the stipulation in Article 243-E(1) of the Constitution,” the High Court said.
The High Court also directed that the administrators appointed by the government not to take any decisions of consequence rather than routine administrative matters.
“We find that the pleadings and grounds are sufficient to quash the appointment of the Administrator and the deferring of the elections contrary to the constitutional mandate in Article 243-E. However, now that we propose to issue a mandamus to hold elections at the earliest, the appointments of Administrators need not be quashed. The Administrators must, however, take no policy decisions or expend panchayat funds other than for routine matters,” the High Court said.
