Setback to Sukhu government: Himachal High Court restores dissolved panchayat bodies in Lahaul-Spiti, Pangi

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Deepak Chauhan and other elected panchayat representatives challenging the state government’s notification issued under Section 120(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, read with Article 243E of the Constitution, through which the PRI bodies were dissolved with immediate effect.

The petitioners contended that their tenure was legally scheduled to continue until October 17, 2026, as the Panchayati Raj Institutions in these tribal areas were elected in October 2021, several months after the rest of the state due to local circumstances. They argued that although fresh panchayat elections were conducted on May 26, 28 and 30, this year pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, the newly elected bodies could not assume office before the expiry of the existing panchayats’ constitutional tenure.

According to the petitioners, the state itself had initially acknowledged this position through a notification dated June 6, 2026, fixing the first meetings of the newly elected panchayats on October 18, 2026. However, the government subsequently modified the notification on June 24 and advanced the first meetings to June 27, 2026, effectively dissolving the existing elected bodies nearly four months before completion of their term.

The State defended its decision by relying on Section 120(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, inserted through an amendment that came into force on January 9, 2026. The provision stipulates that where panchayat elections are delayed due to force majeure, public boycott or similar circumstances, their tenure would run concurrently with panchayats in the rest of the state.

The government argued that while panchayat elections across Himachal were held in January 2021, elections in Lahaul-Spiti and Pangi were conducted in October that year. Therefore, the provision permitted synchronising the tenure of these panchayats with those elsewhere in the state. Rejecting the state’s preliminary justification, the Court observed that the amendment was enacted in January 2026 and could not retrospectively curtail the vested right of elected representatives to complete their constitutionally guaranteed five-year term.

“We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have a vested right. Therefore, the dissolution as per the notification dated June 24, 2026, suffers from a defect, as the rights of the petitioners to hold office and of other similarly situated persons cannot be taken away,” the Bench observed.

The court further observed, “The issue involves a larger public interest also”. It said that the State had itself issued a notification on June 6 this year fixing October 18 for the first meeting of the newly elected panchayats. However, it later modified the notification on June 24 and advanced the first meetings to June 27, “effectively ending the tenure of the existing Panchayats months ahead of schedule”.

“In view of the above, we are constrained to stay the notification dated June 24 and the subsequent modification of the same day. Petitioners along with similarly situated persons shall be allowed to continue till further orders,” the bench said.