The Bombay High Court at Goa has said governments cannot choose a “politically convenient” date for elections whose periodicity is fixed by the Constitution, while laying down a strict timeline for completing delayed elections to 11 municipal councils in Goa.
A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten Venegavkar made the observations while upholding the validity of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, which altered provisions relating to ward delimitation and reservation. The court, however, made it clear that introducing fresh statutory requirements could not provide the government with additional time to indefinitely postpone elections.
“No government has a constitutional entitlement to choose a politically convenient date for an election whose periodicity is fixed by the Constitution,” the bench observed. It added that the legislature could not assume that a new electoral requirement automatically provided additional constitutional time for its implementation.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the 2026 ordinance. The petitioners argued that applying the amended framework after the terms of municipal councils had already expired violated Article 243U of the Constitution, which prescribes the duration of municipalities and requires elections to be completed within the constitutional timeframe.
Ordinance upheld
The bench upheld the constitutional validity of the ordinance, holding that the legislature possessed the power to amend municipal laws. However, it rejected the proposition that exercises required under the amended law could justify prolonged non-compliance with Article 243U.
The tenure of several municipal councils in Goa expired between March and May this year, following which administrators were appointed to manage their affairs.
The court said the constitutional requirement of periodically returning democratic authority to elected representatives could not be treated as a flexible deadline dependent on administrative convenience.
It stressed that elections must satisfy both legal requirements and constitutional timelines.
“The Constitution does not require a choice between lawful elections and timely elections; it requires both,” the bench said.
Any departure from the constitutionally prescribed deadline, it added, must be restricted to the minimum period genuinely required to comply with the law.
SEC cannot surrender calendar
The High Court also addressed the role of the State Election Commission (SEC), holding that its institutional independence did not permit it to disregard valid statutory requirements.
At the same time, the court said the SEC could not allow the election calendar to depend on the speed at which another authority completed its responsibilities.
“No State Election Commission can surrender the electoral calendar to the pace at which another authority chooses to act,” the bench observed, adding that authorities must exercise their powers in a manner that ensures the Constitution, rather than “institutional convenience”, determines when elected government returns.
The court said periodic renewal of elected local bodies could not be allowed to become a “moving variable”.
Strict timeline set
To reconcile the requirements of the amended ordinance with the constitutional deadline, the High Court directed the authorities responsible for delimitation, reservation and elections to carry out their respective exercises concurrently rather than sequentially.
The court directed that final ward delimitation notifications be issued by September 9, following which reservation notifications are to be completed.
The amended framework involves ward delimitation as well as an empirical exercise concerning reservation for Other Backward Classes.
The bench ordered the entire electoral process to be concluded within the “shortest lawful period”, making clear that administrative and statutory exercises cannot be used to unnecessarily prolong the absence of elected municipal bodies.