THREE DECADES AFTER the idea of decentralisation of powers became law, making three-tier governance a fundamental pillar of Indian polity, local self-governments face the threat of redundancy. Delayed municipal and panchayat elections have become commonplace, with state governments often offering excuses to postpone these polls.
The Supreme Court, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) last month, agreed to examine the “genuineness” of the reasons cited by states for not holding elections to panchayats and municipalities. The court directed the petitioner to categorise the states based on their reasons for the delay, facilitating the issuance of orders for immediate elections.
The PIL was filed by ISHAD (International Society for Human Awakening and Development), an NGO, which collected responses under the Right to Information Act (RTI) from 17 state election commissions (SECs). The 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution granted constitutional status to panchayats and municipal bodies, promoting local self-governance―a step towards realising Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of ‘Gram Swaraj’. Activists, however, warn that the trend of delayed elections threatens the principle of decentralisation.
“At least 85,000 of the 1.5 lakh local bodies across 17 states have not held elections. There is a clear pattern to these delays. As per Articles 243-E and 243-U, elections to panchayats and municipalities must be conducted before the expiry of the five-year term of the outgoing body. However, SECs have failed to conduct timely elections due to various reasons,” the petitioner stated.
J.S. Saharia, chairman of ISHAD, said, “We collected information about delayed polls from the SECs, although many states were uncooperative. The apex court has directed us to tabulate the reasons state-wise and submit them on January 22. We hope the court will direct the states to hold elections immediately.”
State governments have cited pending delimitation exercises and not fixing Other Backward Class (OBC) reservations as reasons for these delays. Activists, however, argue that the excuses are politically motivated. “The delay is due to the unwillingness of political parties to cede control to local bodies. What is stopping the Supreme Court from giving a blanket order? In Karnataka, the High Court had ordered the state government to hold the BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) elections. But it was stayed citing delimitation and OBC reservation. I hold the Supreme Court directly responsible for Bengaluru’s pitiable state owing to misgovernance,” said Srikanth Narasimhan, leader of the Bangalore Navanirman Party.
Srikanth Vishwanathan, CEO of the Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy, Bengaluru, said, “We are aiming at ‘Viksit Bharat’ by 2047. But can we achieve it by putting off local body elections? An elected body is crucial for any city that hopes to attract investments and talent.”
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, cited Punjab as an example where judicial intervention compelled the state government to hold elections. The Aam Aadmi Party government conducted panchayat elections on October 15, 2024, after being reprimanded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Subsequently, the apex court’s intervention led to municipal elections in five cities and 43 municipal councils on December 21, following a two-year delay. Similarly, Uttar Pradesh conducted municipal elections last May, five months late, under the Supreme Court’s direction.
While some states comply with court orders, others continue to offer technical excuses. The absence of updated census data has exacerbated the problem, as it hinders reservations. Under the 73rd and 74th amendments, seats were reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward classes. While the reservation for SCs and STs was proportional to their population, state governments were empowered to reserve seats for OBCs, but no norms were set. The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling on OBC reservations, which mandated a “three-fold test” to determine quotas, has further complicated the process. The test requires states to set up a commission to examine backwardness, provide empirical data to support the quota, and ensure that reservations do not exceed 50 per cent of the total seats in local bodies.
In Karnataka, a pioneer in decentralised governance, elections to zilla and taluk panchayats remain overdue. Similarly, at least four of Karnataka’s 11 city corporations―including Bengaluru―lack elected representatives. The BBMP council’s tenure ended in September 2020, but successive governments have postponed elections. The Congress government has proposed restructuring Bengaluru’s administration, delaying elections further.
Elections to many local bodies are delayed by unresolved petitions on OBC reservations in Maharashtra. Similarly, in Jammu and Kashmir, municipal and panchayat elections are pending because of issues related to delimitation and OBC reservations.
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has recommended entrusting delimitation and reservation processes to state election commissions. Civic activists emphasise that local elected representatives are crucial for better governance, accountability, and development. Delayed elections also lead to financial losses. For instance, Karnataka risks forfeiting central grants worth 018,948 crore because of the delays. Telangana is similarly at risk of losing Rs1,000 crore in grants.
Former corporators say MPs and MLAs resist local elections as they fear losing control over constituencies, and potential political competition. “The bigger leaders don’t believe in power sharing, especially at the local level,” said a former corporator. “Political parties prefer to delay local polls as it helps them mobilise grassroots workers for the ‘more important’ assembly and Parliament elections.”