Village heads in UP can’t be allowed to continue as administrators, says Allahabad high court

PRAYAGRAJ: Observing that elected gram pradhans cannot be allowed to continue functioning as administrators indefinitely, the Allahabad high court on Thursday directed the Uttar Pradesh govt to specify a timeline for conducting panchayat elections in the state.Calling state authorities to file a counter affidavit, the court observed that under Article 243E, the term of the panchayat is of a fixed tenure, that is, five years from its first meeting and no longer.The direction was issued by Justice Siddhartha Nandan while hearing a petition filed by Arvind Rathor, who challenged the state govt order dated May 25 and the consequential order issued the following day.According to the May 25 govt order, existing gram pradhans were appointed as administrators following the completion of their fiveyear term.UP govt stand is panchayat polls can’t be held until OBC panel completes workA further prayer was made seeking direction to the state election commission to place on record a detailed and timebound schedule for completion of the entire three- tier panchayat election process in the mandatory compliance of Article 243E and 243K of the Constitution.It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed under Section 12(3-A) of the Panchayat Raj Act , 1947, which was subject matter of challenge in Pram Lal Patel vs.

State of UP in 2000 wherein a division bench of the high court found this provision to be in violation of Section 243E and 243K.Additional chief standing counsel submitted that similar controversy is engaging the attention in a PIL filed by Ashish Kumar Singh.In that matter, the UP govt’s stand was that since it has appointed an OBC Commission for determining the reservation aspects relating to the OBC category, panchayat elections cannot be held until the panel’s exercise is completed as decision on the reservations would be part of the polls.Till date, the OBC Commission has not been submitted its report.On other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the state election commission, Satendra Kumar Singh submitted that the electoral roll has already been published on June 10 and as such they are in a position to hold the elections and the state government has to provide the necessary logistics for holding the elections.But due to the aforesaid stand of the state govt, there is an impediment in holding the elections, the counsel said.After hearing, the court said, “From the perusal of the impugned orders dated May 25, 2026 and May 26, 2026, it is evident that the said orders have been passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(3-A) of the Act, 1947, which has been held to be unconstitutional and therefore these orders are apparently nonest.”“In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the OBC Commission as a party and considering the aforesaid, the orders impugned are nonest, the pradhans cannot be permitted to continue as an administrator,” the court added.The court also said, “However, as a last opportunity to the state govt, they are permitted to file a detailed affidavit bringing on record the report of the OBC Commission, if any, and other details, clearly disclosing the time frame in which the elections shall be held failing which respondent no.2 (principal secretary, Panchayati Raj) shall be present before the court on the next date fixed.”The court further said, “In the personal affidavit to be filed by the respondent no.2, he shall give explanation as to under what circumstances, he has issued the impugned orders, when the provisions mentioned in the impugned order, has already been held to be unconstitutional by a division bench of this court failing which it can be construed that a prima facie contempt has been committed by him with regard to the decision of division bench of this court.

”The court has listed the case for hearing on July 13.