The Bombay High Court turned down several requests that challenged the final announcement of ward formation in Maharashtra, stressing the importance of sticking to election schedules and following constitutional rules.
A number of petitions were filed to challenge the final announcement of ward formation in different areas of Maharashtra. These cases were heard by Judges Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade. The main issue was about how the voting areas were divided for local elections.
The court pointed out its limited power under Article 226 of the Constitution, which means it can't get involved in election matters unless there are clear mistakes in the process. The Supreme Court has said that courts should not interfere with how voting areas are set up unless there are obvious errors.
"The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of holding elections in a democracy, so that local self-government, as planned in the Constitution, happens as soon as possible."
Kalamnuri, District Hingoli: Haribhau Nanasaheb Kumatkar claimed that his objections were unfairly ignored. However, the court found that the correct steps were taken.
Jamkhed, District Ahilyanagar: Petitioners argued that the changes helped certain political parties. The court rejected these claims, noting that rules were followed.
Mahur, District Nanded: Concerns were raised about which villages were included. The court found no signs of unfairness or bias.
Loha and Kandhar, District Nanded: Petitioners said the original boundaries were better and changes were politically driven. The court stressed the need to keep population numbers balanced.
The court dismissed all the petitions, highlighting the importance of holding elections on time as directed by the Supreme Court. Judges Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade emphasized that the guidelines in the Government Order dated 12.06.2025 were followed, and there were no constitutional violations.
"We are aware that if we interfere too easily in such matters, it would disrupt the entire election process."
The court's decision highlights its role in making sure elections are held without unnecessary interference, balancing legal checks with the need for fair elections. The decision supports the constitutional requirement to hold local elections in Maharashtra on time.
