Bombay High Court upholds delimitation and reservation rules, dismisses batch challenges to ward formation and Rule XII

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad heard a large batch of writ petitions challenging ward formation, delimitation notifications and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 2025. The petitions raised two principal issues: alleged irregularities in ward formulation and objections being ignored in the delimitation exercise, and the validity of Rule XII of the 2025 Rotation Rules which declared the forthcoming general election as the “first election” for the purpose of rotation.

The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging ward formation and reservation notifications, holding that most petitions lacked a factual foundation and that judicial intervention at the election-preparatory stage would imperil the statutory electoral process. The Court emphasised constitutional limits on interference with electoral matters and the supervisory role of the State Election Commission, and it rejected challenges to Rule XII of the 2025 Rules, finding no malafide in the State’s exercise of rule-making power and observing that reservation and rotation provisions remained operative. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “There is an express bar imposed by Article 243‑O of the Constitution of India to question the delimitation of wards in a Court of law. It is provided thereunder that (i) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or (ii) the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243‑K shall not be called in question in any Court. Sub‑clause (b) of Article 243‑K puts a further bar to call in question the election to any Panchayat except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” The Court added elsewhere that “the writ petitions in this batch are without a factual foundation” and concluded, “For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed.”

Background The disputes arose after the State and authorised officers conducted a fresh delimitation and ward‑formation exercise and the State published the Rotation of Reservation Rules, 2025, followed by final notifications for ward formation and reservation in September–October 2025. Petitioners across multiple writ petitions alleged that objections to draft ward formation were ignored, that enumeration blocks were impermissibly split or shifted in breach of guidelines, and that the Rotation Rules (in particular Rule XII) arbitrarily reset the rotation cycle so that the forthcoming elections would be treated as the “first election”, thereby affecting reservation prospects for SC/ST/OBC and women.

Respondents, including municipal authorities, the State Election Commission and the State, relied on the statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 and Articles 243‑C to 243‑O and 243‑K of the Constitution. They argued that significant territorial and demographic changes necessitated a fresh delimitation, that proviso to section 274 permitted dispensing with prior publication in exigent circumstances, and that the State Election Commission had the duty to conduct and complete elections within the timeframe directed by the Supreme Court in the Rahul Ramesh Wagh proceedings. The High Court recorded interlocutory orders of November 2025 which refused interim stays, directed filing of replies in select matters, and noted the Supreme Court’s earlier orders leaving remedial avenues open for anomalies after elections. The Court reviewed statutory provisions on division of districts into electoral divisions, the manner of allotment and rotation of reserved seats under Rules III–V of the 2025 Rules, and relevant precedents including Mohinder Singh Gill and decisions on rotation and rotation‑related disputes.

After considering submissions that Rule XII frustrated the rotation principle and contentions that the 2017 delimitation should govern, the Court held that the bar in Article 243‑O and the duties of the State Election Commission foreclosed pre‑election interference in the manner sought by petitioners. The Court further found that Rule XII and the 2025 Rotation Rules had been validly promulgated in exercise of rule‑making powers, that no mala fide or jurisdictional defect appeared, and that challenges to Rule XII lacked substance. The Court dismissed the batch of petitions concerning delimitation and those challenging Rule XII, while recording that aggrieved parties would retain such remedial options as were available under the statutory scheme and earlier orders: as the Court noted in an earlier order, the proceedings “shall not be construed as if the Election Commission or the State government shall not proceed with issuance of notice etc. and the preparation for conducting elections ... However, all actions taken by the respondents shall be subject to outcome of these writ petitions.”

Case Details: Case No.: 2026:BHC‑AS:7747‑DB (WRIT PETITION NO. 11878 OF 2025 & batch) Case Title: Vikram Kashinathrao Khutwad v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (and connected writ petitions concerning delimitation and rotation of reservation) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate; Ms. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate; Dr. Uday Warunjikar; Mr. D. P. Palodkar; Mr. Ratan L. Adhe (among others listed in Appendix‑I) For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader; Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for State Election Commission; Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak; Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader (and other State counsels)