NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Maharashtra government and sought its reply on a writ petition raising a significant constitutional issue over the continued non-conduct of elections to Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in the state.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice after hearing a petition filed by Sangram Govindrao Patil, a former elected member of the Kusumbe Gat, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Maharashtra.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, along with advocates Rajesh G. Inamdar and Shashwat Anand, appeared for the petitioner. In the plea, Patil alleged that elections have not been conducted owing to reservation structures exceeding the constitutional ceiling of 50 per cent, despite the expiry of the tenure of the elected local bodies more than 506 days ago.
The matter has been directed to be listed on September 3, 2026.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, contended that elections to the concerned local bodies have remained pending even after the expiry of their tenure on January 16, 2025, on account of reservation matrices allegedly prepared in violation of the binding 50 per cent ceiling laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Krishna Murthy vs Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs State of Maharashtra.
According to the petition, the reservation statement dated October 3, 2025, prepared by the district administration for the Dhule Zilla Parishad reserves 41 of the 56 seats (73.21 per cent), while several Panchayat Samitis have reservation levels of up to 85.71 per cent, allegedly far exceeding the constitutional limit.
It further submitted that such unconstitutional reservation structures have resulted in the continued postponement of elections, defeating the constitutional mandate of periodic democratic governance under Part IX of the Constitution.
The petition relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali, which held that aggregate reservation in local bodies cannot ordinarily exceed 50 per cent, elections cannot be indefinitely postponed on account of reservation disputes, and excess reserved seats may be treated as Open Category seats to facilitate the timely conduct of elections.
The petitioner submitted that the present case does not seek any fresh declaration of law but only the implementation of the binding law already declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141. It seeks directions to treat reservations beyond the constitutional ceiling as Open Category seats and to direct the immediate conduct of elections to the concerned Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in accordance with Part IX of the Constitution.