The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, set aside the election program issued by the Maharashtra State Election Commission for a Panchayat Samiti seat, stating that conducting a bye-election for a tenure of less than six months violates Section 63 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the vacancy, which arose in February 2024, should not result in an election for a position with such a short remaining term, aligning with the legal precedent and purposive interpretation of the statute.

1. Introduction

The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, addressed a series of writ petitions challenging the election program for a Panchayat Samiti vacancy. The petitioners contended that the election program, which allowed for a tenure of less than six months, was against the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

2. Factual Background

The case involved a vacancy that arose due to the death of an elected member in February 2024. The State Election Commission issued an election program in July 2024, with the election results scheduled to be declared in August 2024, leaving the elected candidate with less than six months in office.

3. Legal Contentions

The petitioners argued that Section 63 of the Act should be interpreted in a manner that prevents elections for such short tenures. They cited previous judgments to support their claim that the election program was unsustainable under the law.

4. Respondents' Arguments

The State Election Commission and other respondents argued that the statute mandated filling vacancies through elections, regardless of the remaining tenure. They also highlighted procedural delays, such as the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct, which postponed the communication of the vacancy.

5. Court’s Analysis

The court analyzed Section 63 of the Act and previous case laws, concluding that conducting elections for a tenure of less than six months contradicts the legislative intent. The court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of the statute to avoid futile elections.

6. Conclusion

The court quashed the election program, setting a precedent for how similar cases should be handled in the future. The decision underscores the importance of interpreting election laws in a manner that respects both statutory provisions and the practical implications of holding elections for very short terms.