Uttarakhand HC Vacates Stay On Panchayat Polls, Seeks State's Reply On Pleas Against New Reservation Rules

It may be recalled that earlier on June 23, a bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mehra had stayed the elections, noting that the State Government had failed to issue a gazette notification regarding the newly proposed rotation-based reservation rules.

The interim order had come while the bench was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the government's decision to do away with the existing reservation rotation policy and implement a new one with immediate effect.

Following the stay, the State Election Commission had postponed all election-related processes, including nomination filings. However, with the High Court lifting the stay today, the path for conducting the Panchayat elections in the state now stands cleared.

That said, the Court has directed the State Government to file its response to the petitions within three weeks.

Petitioners' Grievance

The leading petitioner (Ganesh Kandpal), represented by Advocate Shobhit Saharia, has submitted that the State's decision to bring in a new reservation policy violates not only earlier court rulings but also Section 126 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

It has been contended that under the existing statutory scheme, a constituency reserved for a particular category is to remain so for three consecutive terms before being rotated. By implementing a new policy mid-way, the government had allegedly disrupted this rotation cycle.

According to the petitioner, the new system results in certain seats, which have been reserved for three successive terms, would continue to remain reserved. This, Kandpal argues, runs contrary to the spirit of the rotation principle and effectively denies eligible individuals like him the opportunity to contest elections.

On Tuesday, the State Government had moved an application seeking vacation of the stay. It was informed to the Court that the revised reservation policy had, in fact, been notified in the official gazette on June 14.

The government clarified that the failure to produce the gazette notification during the previous hearing was due to a “communication gap”.

Before the bench, the State also defended the legality of the newly notified policy, as it has been argued that the changes introduced, even if they involved a first-time reservation or modifications to most seats, were well within constitutional and statutory bounds.