BAJRANG BHAVSING LIMBORE AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Summary: The Maharashtra State Election Commission delayed local elections in several areas just 72 hours before voting, causing a stir. The decision was challenged in court, questioning its timing and fairness.
On December 2, 2025, Judges Hiten S. Venegavkar and Vibha Kankanwadi addressed the sudden postponement of elections in Maharashtra. The State Election Commission decided to delay the elections of several local councils, citing unresolved appeals related to candidate nominations.
"The decisions were made because in several areas where the candidate nomination forms were rejected, the necessary appeals were not addressed by the responsible authority by December 22, 2025."
Bajrang Bhavsing Limbore and another petitioner argued that the Commission's decision was unfair, coming just three days before the elections. They believed the Commission should have anticipated these issues and planned accordingly. The original election schedule was set on November 4, 2025, with withdrawals allowed until November 25, 2025.
The Commission, represented by lawyer Mr. Sachindra Shetye, defended its actions by citing its authority under the law. They argued that the decision was necessary to ensure fairness and allow candidates a chance to withdraw if appeals were resolved in their favor.
"The Commission argues that if the appeal process allows candidates to be back in the race after the withdrawal date has passed, those candidates should still have a chance to withdraw their names, which would be impossible without the Commission stepping in."
The court acknowledged the Commission's power to postpone elections but criticized the timing. It decided not to cancel the election plans to avoid more confusion but required that all election results be announced at the same time after December 21, 2025.
"The Commission's delay deserves criticism, but canceling the election plans now would cause more uncertainty in the electoral process."
The court told the Commission to create rules to prevent such last-minute disruptions in the future. This includes considering timelines for appeals and ensuring a consistent approach to postponements.
The elections can go ahead, but the court's decision ensures that no results are announced until all postponed elections are completed, keeping things fair and preventing any unfair influence on voters.
