Quick Summary: The State Election Commission of Maharashtra postponed local elections just three days before voting. This decision, affecting several local government bodies, led to legal challenges. The High Court ruled on December 2, 2025, to delay the announcement of all election results until the postponed elections are completed.
On December 2, 2025, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, with Judges Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, looked into complaints from Chandan Basvaraj Patil about the sudden delay of local elections in Maharashtra. The State Election Commission pushed back elections scheduled for December 3, 2025, to December 20, 2025, because some candidate nomination issues were not yet sorted out.
"The Commission postponed the elections... 72 hours before the date of voting," noted Chandan Basvaraj Patil, arguing it was an unfair decision.
The Commission postponed elections because some candidates' nomination issues were still unresolved. Without sorting these out, candidates couldn't decide whether to stay in the race or drop out.
Chandan Basvaraj Patil criticized the Commission for not foreseeing this problem, arguing it messed up the election process.
Chandan Basvaraj Patil claimed that the Commission's decision was not reasonable and messed up the election process. He argued that the Commission should have planned better to avoid last-minute changes.
Meanwhile, the Commission defended its decision, saying it had the authority to ensure fair elections.
The High Court decided not to change the postponement but stressed the need for clear planning and foresight in organizing elections.
"The Commission's conduct... is formally condemned as lacking in administrative foresight," the judges stated.
The court ordered that no election results be announced until all elections, including the postponed ones, are completed. This ensures that earlier results don't influence voters in the postponed elections.
The court told the Commission to make rules to prevent such problems in the future. These rules should include:
The case shows the need for careful planning and openness in running elections. The court's decision aims to keep elections fair and ensure all candidates and voters are treated equally.
