Summary: The State Election Commission of Maharashtra postponed elections just 72 hours before voting, causing a stir. This decision was challenged in court, raising questions about fairness and timing.
On December 2, 2025, the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a group of requests challenging the State Election Commission's decision to delay elections for several local councils. The elections were originally set for December 3, 2025, but were moved to December 20, 2025.
"The Commission postponed the elections just 72 hours before the date of voting," argued Sunita W/o Manmohan Baheti, claiming it was an unfair move.
The Commission mentioned problems with nomination appeals. Some candidates' nomination forms were rejected, and their appeals were unresolved by the deadline, preventing them from withdrawing their candidacy if they wished. The Commission felt this denied candidates their rights.
Sunita W/o Manmohan Baheti argued that the Commission knew about the appeal timelines and should have planned better. She claimed the delay was unnecessary and disrupted the election process.
"The revised election program unnecessarily prolongs the election process," she stated.
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, representing the Commission, argued that parts of the Constitution allow the Commission to ensure fair elections, even if it means postponing them. He emphasized the need for candidates to have a fair chance to withdraw if their appeals were successful.
The court recognized the Commission's authority but criticized the timing of the decision. Judges Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar noted that the Commission should have anticipated the issues earlier.
"The Commission's delay deserves criticism," the court remarked, but it decided against canceling the election programs to avoid further chaos.
The court ordered that all election results be announced together after the postponed elections on December 20, 2025. This decision aims to prevent any undue influence on voters in the delayed elections.
The court directed the Commission to create guidelines to avoid last-minute election disruptions. This includes planning for appeal timelines and ensuring consistent treatment of areas within a ward.
In summary, while the court upheld the postponement, it highlighted the need for better planning and transparency in future elections to maintain public confidence and fairness.
