Rajasthan High Court Upholds State's Authority in Panchayati Raj and Municipal Governance
Court Dismisses Pleas for Extension of Tenure Beyond Constitutional Limit, Emphasizes Timely Elections
In a landmark judgment dated September 20, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, ruled against the extension of tenure for elected representatives of Panchayati Raj Institutions and Municipalities beyond the constitutionally mandated five-year term. The court clarified that the appointment of Administrators for a period not exceeding six months after dissolution is within the State Government’s jurisdiction, effectively rejecting claims for continued tenure by elected representatives in the capacity of Administrators.
The case, titled Smt. Urmila Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., involved multiple petitioners who were previously elected as Sarpanchs and later appointed as Chairpersons of newly formed Municipalities. Following the completion of their five-year term in January 2025, the State Government appointed Sub-Divisional Officers as Administrators, pursuant to a notification issued on January 22, 2025.
The petitioners argued that the notification was arbitrary and discriminatory, pointing out that Sarpanchs in other Gram Panchayats had been allowed to continue as Administrators beyond their tenure. The petitioners sought a writ from the court to allow them to continue as Chairpersons in the capacity of Administrators of their respective Municipalities until new elections were held.
The court, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the constitutional mandate that the tenure of elected representatives in Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions cannot exceed five years, with Administrators appointed for a maximum of six months after dissolution. The court highlighted the distinction between the provisions under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, noting that the petitioners could not claim a statutory right to continue as Administrators post-term completion.
The court also stressed the importance of upholding the constitutional mandate for timely elections, criticizing the delay in conducting municipal elections as contrary to constitutional requirements. The judgment urged the State Government and Election Commission to expedite the election process to ensure the restoration of democratic governance in municipalities.
The ruling reiterated the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing that while differential treatment is not inherently discriminatory, it must be based on reasonable classification. The court found that the State Government's discretion in appointing Administrators for dissolved Panchayati Raj Institutions and Municipalities represents such a reasonable classification.
The court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that the petitioners have no legal right to continue as Chairpersons in the capacity of Administrators after their term has expired. The judgment reinforces the constitutional duration limits for elected representatives and mandates the prompt conduct of elections to avoid prolonged governance by Administrators, which the court deemed unconstitutional.
Bottom Line:
Constitutional Law - Panchayati Raj Institutions and Municipalities - Tenure of elected representatives cannot be extended beyond the stipulated five-year term - Power to appoint Administrators upon dissolution rests with the State Government - Clear distinction between provisions for Panchayati Raj Institutions under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and Municipalities under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India Articles 243-U, 243-E, 14, 226 - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Sections 94, 95 - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 Sections 7, 322
Smt. Urmila Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782215
