The High Court in Bombay, Aurangabad Branch, recently made a decision on December 2, 2025, about delaying local elections in Maharashtra. This decision has sparked conversations about whether the elections are being handled fairly and if the planning was done properly.
Several people, including Parag Shivaji Sandhan, filed complaints against the Maharashtra State Election Commission's choice to delay elections for some local councils. These elections were supposed to happen on December 3, 2025, but were pushed back to December 20, 2025, because there were still unresolved issues about rejected nomination forms.
Parag Shivaji Sandhan and the others argued that the Election Commission's decision was random and not well thought out. They believed the Commission should have been ready for the appeals and planned better. The election schedule was originally set on November 4, 2025, with a deadline to withdraw on November 25, 2025. The petitioners thought that the decision messed up the election process and didn't have a good reason based on the Constitution.
"The Commission’s actions are neither fair nor justified by the Constitution," the petitioners argued.
The State Election Commission, represented by lawyer Mr. Sachindra Shetye, defended its decision by referring to parts of the Constitution that give the Commission the power to manage elections and make sure they are fair. The Commission said that delaying the elections was important so that candidates whose appeals were accepted could choose to withdraw if they wanted to.
The court, with Judges Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, recognized the Commission's authority to delay elections but criticized their timing. The judges pointed out that the decision was made just 72 hours before voting, showing poor planning.
"The late use of power is wrong and should be seriously criticized," the judges stated.
The court chose not to cancel the delay but set conditions to ensure fairness. All election results will be announced together on or after December 21, 2025, to avoid any unfair advantage in the delayed elections.
The court also told the Commission to make rules to prevent similar problems in the future. These rules should deal with possible delays and ensure a consistent approach to delaying elections.
