Supreme Court Directs Holding Of Maharashtra Local Body Elections With OBC Reservation Before Banthia Commission Report

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 6) passed an interim order to hold the local body elections in the State of Maharashtra, which were stalled since 2022 due to litigation relating to the implementation of the reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The Court directed that the elections to the local bodies be held as per the OBC reservation which existed prior to the submission of the Banthia Commission report in July 2022. "The reservation shall be provided to the OBC communities as per the law as it existed in the State of Maharashtra before the 2022 report of the JK Banthia Commission," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and NK Singh directed the State Election Commission to notify the local body elections within four weeks. Efforts should be made to complete the election process within a period of four months, the bench directed. The Election Commission has been given liberty to seek extension of time if needed.

The bench also clarified that the elections will be subject to the outcome of the petitions challenging the Banthia Commission and that the order will not prejudice the contentions raised by the parties.

The bench said in its order that the Constitutional mandate for democracy at the grassroot level must be "respected and ensured."  The elections were deferred after the Supreme Court in August 2022 ordered a status quo on the OBC reservations in the local bodies.

In the order, the bench observed :

"In our considered opinon, the constitutional mandate of grassroots democracy through periodical elections to local bodies ought to be respected and ensured. Since the elected bodies have a prescribed term, no irreversible loss will be caused to those who want the appropriate amendment to the existing laws for inclusion or exclusion of certain OBC communities. All those issues can be considered in due course of time, but meanwhile we see no reason as to why the elections of local bodies be not held in the State of Maharashtra."

During the hearing, the bench asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the State of Maharashtra, why the elections cannot be held.

"One thing we can't understand. Whatever the law you have formulated, wrong or good- that we will decide. You have already identified certain classes of OBCs. Why can't elections be held as per that law without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners?" Justice Kant asked the SG.  SG also agreed that elections cannot be held up.

"Is there any logic? Today bureaucrats are occupying all the Municipal Corporations and Panchayats and taking major policy decisions. Because of all this litigation, a complete democratic process has been stalled. Officers have no accountability. Why not allow to hold the elections as per the present data?" Justice Kant said.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, for the petitioner,  submitted that elections should not be held as per the Banthia Commission's report, as 34,000 seats meant for OBCs were de-reserved. SG said that the State has no difficulty in conducting the elections as proposed by Jaising.

During the hearing in the morning, the Court orally expressed the need to hold the elections. 

Justice Kant said, "Suppose whosoever has been declared as OBC, based on that, let the elections be held, subject to the outcome of the proceedings. After all, it is an election for a tenure. Assuming someone has been wrongly included or excluded, inclusion may not be an issue. Exclusion might cause heartburn. Assuming that there is an erroneous exclusion, how is it going to make a difference? They will have an opportunity [next elections]. It is not a permanent election for the whole life."

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising said that the petitioners are also seeking the same relief only, and stressed that representative bodies cannot be left without representatives. "Elections have been withheld for far too long. They are running all representative bodies, right from gram panchayats up to zilla parishads only through their chosen bureaucrats and taking major policy decisions. So kindly allow the elections to go ahead," Jaising urged.

Justice Kant then said that the Court is currently dealing with cases involving issues created by bureaucrats running the panchayats. "Now because the elected bodies are not there, so bureaucrats have occupied the posts and they are running the affairs. And one of them has, as it appears, started leasing out and auctioning prime properties..."

Jaising then pointed out that the delimitation done by the Election Commission was abolished by the State of Maharashtra under an Ordinance.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, appearing in a new writ petition filed in 2025, said that without any study of political backwardness, reservation has been automatically applied to the persons in the OBC list. "A report which has to do with political backwardness has to apply the principles which the Constitution Bench laid down in the Krishnamoorti judgment," he said. He contended that the Banthia Commission constituted by the State Government has gone with the existing list of OBCs, without fulfilling the 'triple tests' laid down by the Supreme Court. OBCs are based on social and educational backwardness for the purpose of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and not for political reservation, Sankaranarayan argued, adding that separate criteria should apply to ascertain Politically Backward Classes (PBCs).

Sankaranarayanan also agreed that elections should not be stalled, and the only issue was with respect to the proper identification of the reservations.

The hearing was deferred till 12.55 PM to hear the State. Later, after hearing the Solicitor General at 1PM, the bench passed the order.

Case Title: RAHUL RAMESH WAGH Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021 (and connected cases)

Click Here To Read/Download Order