Nimesia Faleiro vs State of Goa

(Per HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)

Registry to waive office objections and register the matters.

These Writ Petitions raise an important question concerning the constitutional obligation to ensure timely elections to Municipal Councils and the manner in which that obligation is to be fulfilled when, before the elections could be held, the statutory framework governing the composition, delimitation and reservation of wards itself came to be altered by the State Legislature. The controversy has arisen in relation to the general elections to eleven Municipal Councils in the State of Goa, which were constituted pursuant to elections held during March and April 2021 and whose respective terms came to an end during March, April and May 2026. Article 243U of the Constitution required the elections for constituting the succeeding Municipal Councils to be completed before expiry of their respective duration. The elections, however, could not be held within that period and, therefore upon expiry of term the State Government had appointed Administrators to administer the functioning of these Municipal Councils.

Before the elections to these Municipal Councils could be held, the Governor of Goa promulgated the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 (Ordinance No. 4 of 2026) on 22 April 2026, which was published in the Official Gazette on 23 April 2026. The Ordinance brought about amendments to the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 and, amongst other changes it also altered the statutory regime governing the composition of Municipal Councils and the exercise of delimitation and reservation of wards. The intervention of the Ordinance at this stage assumes significance because, by then, the State Election Commission had already initiated several preparatory steps towards holding the ensuing municipal elections under the law as it stood prior to the amendment.

The Petitioners have approached this Court essentially on the premise that the constitutional command contained in Article 243U could not have been permitted to remain unfulfilled by introducing a new statutory exercise at a stage when the elections had already become due or were shortly to become due. In some of the petitions, the constitutional validity of the Ordinance itself has been questioned on the touchstone of Articles 14, 213 and 243U of the Constitution of India. An alternative case has also been advanced that, even if the Ordinance is otherwise constitutionally valid, it ought not to be applied to the elections which, according to the Petitioners, were required to have been completed under the pre-existing statutory regime. The consequential relief sought is that the elections be conducted within a time-bound period based on the delimitation and electoral exercise which had already been undertaken before the Ordinance came into force.

One of the Petitions subsequently carried the challenge further when, during the pendency of these proceedings, the State Election Commission, on 21 May 2026, declared the earlier process of delimitation of municipal wards initiated in March 2026 as null and void. The Petitioner therein has questioned that decision as well and contends that an exercise which had already substantially progressed towards holding the elections could not have been abandoned merely because the statutory regime was subsequently altered.

The controversy before us, however, cannot be examined merely by asking whether the elections ought to have been held before the terms of the Municipal Councils expired. There can be little debate about the constitutional command contained in Article 243U of the Constitution. The more difficult question arises because the elections, though constitutionally required to have been completed within that period, were not in fact held and, before they could thereafter be conducted, the law governing the exercise itself stood amended. The Court is consequently confronted with the operation of two constitutional considerations which cannot be examined in isolation. On the one hand, is the obligation imposed by Article 243U of the Constitution that democratic governance through an elected Municipality should not be interrupted by avoidable delay in conducting elections. On the other, the elections which are ultimately held must conform to the other provisions contained in Part IX-A of the Constitution and to a statutory regime which continues to remain in force unless its constitutional validity is successfully assailed.

It is this circumstance which distinguishes the present controversy from an ordinary case where elections have been postponed merely because of executive inaction or administrative delay. The Petitioners contend that the subsequent legislative intervention cannot be permitted to defeat a constitutional timetable which had already become operative. The State, on the other hand, maintains that once the law has validly been amended, neither the State Election Commission nor this Court can direct that the elections be conducted by disregarding that law without first holding the amended provisions unconstitutional. The State Election Commission is therefore placed under the simultaneous constitutional obligation of conducting the elections at the earliest and of conducting them in accordance with the law which presently governs those elections.

The issue, therefore, is not capable of being resolved by treating Article 243U of the Constitution as operating independently of the remaining constitutional provisions governing municipalities, nor can the constitutional timetable prescribed by Article 243U of the Constitution be rendered ineffective merely because a subsequent statutory exercise requires time for its implementation. The Constitution requires both commands to operate. The real question before us is whether, and in what manner, they can be harmonised so that the amended statutory regime is given its legitimate operation without permitting its implementation to result in an indefinite or avoidable postponement of Election of the Municipal Councils.

It is in this background that these Petitions will have to be considered. Before we proceed to examine the constitutional questions which arise for determination and the rival submissions advanced before us, it would be appropriate to notice separately the nature of each petition, the reliefs sought therein and the material facts on which the respective Petitioners have approached this Court. Though the Petitions converge upon the common question concerning the impending elections to the Municipal Councils and the effect of the 2026 Ordinance upon those elections, the factual foundation and the reliefs sought in all of them are not identical. Those distinctions require to be noticed before the common constitutional controversy is taken up for consideration.

Writ Petition No. 1073 of 2026 has been filed by Mr. Shitesh More, a resident and voter of Mapusa Municipal Council, who states that he is desirous of contesting the ensuing election to the Mapusa Municipal Council. The petition was instituted on 27 April 2026, shortly after promulgation of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, and directly questions the validity of that Ordinance.

The reliefs sought in this petition substantially correspond with the first three reliefs in Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2026, although this petition does not contain the subsequent challenge to the State Election Commission's decision dated 21 May 2026. Since the exact reliefs define the scope of this petition, they are reproduced below:

The factual foundation of this petition substantially overlaps with the common background already noticed. What is additionally emphasised by this Petitioner is the manner in which the municipal elections had been conducted in the year 2021. He pleads that the terms of the Municipal Councils had then expired before the elections were held and that Administrators had been appointed pending the election process. The process of delimitation and reservation subsequently became the subject matter of proceedings before this Court and the Supreme Court, following which the elections to the eleven Municipal Councils were ultimately conducted in two phases during March and April 2021. The Petitioner relies upon this earlier history to contend that the authorities were fully aware of the constitutional requirement of planning and completing the next round of municipal elections before expiry of the succeeding five-year term.

The Petitioner further pleads that, notwithstanding this earlier experience, the election exercise for the present term was not initiated sufficiently in advance and that, when the tenure of some of the Municipal Councils expired, Administrators were appointed by notification dated 31 March 2026 in respect of Bicholim, CurchoremCacora, Canacona, Pernem, Cuncolim and Valpoi Municipal Councils. According to the Petitioner, the Ordinance which followed on 22 April 2026 introduced a new procedure requiring fresh delimitation, objections, empirical data and reservation exercises and thereby created a statutory process which, if followed, would postpone the elections considerably beyond the constitutional dates on which they ought to have been completed.

A distinct factual circumstance relied upon in this petition is that, during approximately the same period, other electoral exercises within the State were undertaken. The Petitioner refers to the Goa Rural Zilla Panchayat elections held in December 2025, by-elections to vacant Village Panchayat wards held on 8 March 2026, the general election to the Corporation of the City of Panaji held in March 2026 and the proposed by-election to the Ponda Assembly Constituency. On this basis, he alleges that the delay in conducting elections to the eleven Municipal Councils cannot be explained merely by a general inability of the election machinery to conduct elections during that period.

The constitutional challenge in this petition is founded principally upon four propositions. The Petitioner contends that the Ordinance defeats the mandate of Article 243U of the Constitution by altering the electoral framework after the elections had become due and that the timing and consequence of the Ordinance disclose a colourable exercise of power intended to prolong administration through appointed Administrators; that the condition of immediate necessity contemplated by Article 213 of the Constitution is violated ; and that the amended procedure is manifestly arbitrary because it introduces substantial periods for completing various stages of the process without ensuring that the elections themselves are completed within the constitutional period.

The alternative case pleaded by the Petitioner is that, even if the Ordinance is otherwise valid, it should not govern elections which had already fallen due before its promulgation. On that footing, the Petitioner seeks completion of the elections under the pre-existing delimitation and electoral framework rather than striking down the amended regime for all future municipal elections.

Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2026 has been filed by Mr. Trajano D'Mello. He states that he is a citizen of India and a resident of the State of Goa and that he is the National Spokesperson of the Trinamool Congress Party, and that he has remained actively involved in public and political life in the State for several decades.

The principal relief in this petition is a direction to the Respondents to forthwith initiate and complete the election process to the eleven Municipal Councils within a time to be prescribed by this Court. The challenge to the Ordinance is also raised, followed by an alternative prayer that the Ordinance should not govern the elections which had already become due. The prayers in the petition read as follows:—

The factual foundation of this petition substantially follows the common history already noticed and need not be repeated in detail.

The Petitioner additionally pleads that, despite the knowledge of Elections falling due, the authorities failed to complete the election process before the expiry of the respective terms and Administrators again came to be appointed in respect of six Municipal Councils by notification dated 31 March 2026. His central grievance is that the Ordinance was promulgated thereafter, at a stage when the constitutional period for some of the Municipal Councils had already expired and for the remaining Municipal Councils terms were shortly to expire. According to him, the new procedure introduced by the Ordinance would require a fresh exercise of delimitation, collection of empirical data, reservation, invitation and consideration of objections, and publication of the requisite notifications, with the inevitable consequence that the elections would stand postponed for a substantial further period.

What assumes particular significance in this petition, is the emphasis placed upon the time at which the Ordinance was promulgated. The Petitioner does not contend that the State Legislature lacks competence to make a law governing delimitation or reservation of municipal wards. His pleaded case is that the law, when brought into force after the constitutional obligation to hold the elections had already arisen, could not legitimately be used to prolong the failure to comply with Article 243U of the Constitution. It is on this basis that he alleges that the impugned exercise constitutes a colourable exercise of power and a fraud upon the constitutional mandate.

The Petitioner has also questioned the invocation of Article 213 of the Constitution on the ground that the condition requiring circumstances which rendered immediate action was absent. According to him, the impending expiry of the Municipal Councils was known well in advance and the situation which arose in April 2026 was the result of the authorities having failed to take timely steps to conduct the elections. He therefore contends that such pre-existing inaction could not itself furnish the immediate necessity required for resorting to the Ordinance-making power.

The alternative case in this petition proceeds on a narrower footing. The Petitioner submits that, even if the Ordinance is otherwise held to be valid, it cannot be made applicable to municipal elections which had already fallen due prior to its promulgation. He therefore seeks a direction that these elections be conducted based on the pre-existing delimitation and electoral framework.

Writ Petition No. 300 of 2026 stands on a somewhat different footing from the Petitions noticed above because it was instituted prior to promulgation of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026. The Petitioner, Ms. Nimesia Faleiro, was elected in the year 2021 from Ward No. XXIII of the Margao Municipal Council and states that she intended to contest the ensuing municipal election which was then expected to be held in April or May 2026.

The immediate cause for approaching this Court was the absence of any notification identifying the wards which would be reserved for women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, as also the wards which would remain open for the general category. According to the Petitioner, unless this exercise was completed sufficiently in advance, a prospective candidate would have no reasonable opportunity to know the constituency from which he or she could contest and prepare for the election. She therefore sought directions requiring publication of the reservation and rotation of wards well before commencement of the election process.

The Petition, however, was not confined to a direction for early publication of the reservation order. The Petitioner also questioned certain provisions of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 as they then stood. In particular, she challenged the proviso to Section 10(1), which permitted the order concerning delimitation and reservation to be issued as late as seven days before notification of the general election. She further challenged that part of Section 10(1) which required the State Election Commission to act "in consultation with the Government", as well as Sections 11(1) and 11(3) insofar as those provisions prescribed the period within which the list of voters was to be published before nomination of candidates.

Since these challenges were raised independent of the Ordinance and concern the statutory framework which existed before the present controversy assumed its subsequent form, it would be appropriate to reproduce the prayers in full. The Petitioner has prayed as follows:—

The Petitioner relies upon the manner in which reservation notifications had been issued in earlier municipal elections to demonstrate why advance publication was necessary. She refers to the municipal election held in the year 2015, when the reserved wards were notified only shortly before commencement of the nomination process. She also refers to the elections held in the year 2021, when reservation notifications became the subject matter of litigation before this Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court. According to her, the experience of these earlier elections showed that publication of reservation at the last moment not only places candidates at a disadvantage but also leaves very little time for public scrutiny or judicial challenge before the election process formally commences.

Acting upon this apprehension, the Petitioner addressed a representation dated 13 February 2026 calling upon the respondents to declare the reservation and rotation of wards sufficiently in advance. The State Election Commission replied on 19 February 2026 stating, in substance, that the election process would be conducted in accordance with the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 and the applicable Election Rules. The Petitioner considered this response inadequate because it did not indicate when the reservation exercise would actually be completed or published.

The challenge to the seven-day proviso was founded upon the submission that such a short interval between publication of the reservation order and notification of the election did not provide a meaningful opportunity either to prospective candidates to organise their candidature or to affected persons to question the delimitation or reservation before the election process commenced. The Petitioner relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in Dnyaneshwar Narso Naik v. State of Goa¹ to contend that the reservation exercise ought ordinarily to be completed substantially in advance of the election notification.

The Petitioner also questioned the statutory requirement of consultation with the Government. Her case was that, once the constitutional superintendence, direction and control of municipal elections stood vested in the State Election Commission, a statutory arrangement which required the Commission to consult the Government in relation to delimitation and reservation created the possibility of executive influence over an electoral exercise which ought to remain within the independent domain of the Commission.

Thus, when this petition was instituted, the dispute before the Court was principally concerned with the timing, transparency and independence of the delimitation and reservation exercise under the statutory framework then in force. The subsequent promulgation of the Ordinance fundamentally altered that framework while the petition was pending and thereby brought this petition into the larger group of matters now before us. The original challenge raised by the Petitioner must nevertheless be kept distinct because it explains both the circumstances in which the electoral process was already under judicial consideration before 22 April 2026 and the historical background against which the subsequent amendments came to operate.

Writ Petition No. 1069 of 2026 was also instituted before promulgation of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 and, therefore, has to be understood in the statutory setting which existed at the time when the Petitioner approached this Court. The Petitioner, Ms. Vaishali Sanjay Barde, is a resident of Khorlim, Mapusa and describes herself as a prospective woman candidate intending to contest the forthcoming election to the Mapusa Municipal Council.

The grievance raised by the Petitioner is considerably narrower than the challenge raised in Writ Petition No. 300 of 2026. She does not, in the petition as originally filed, seek to invalidate any provision of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968. Her case is that the reservation and rotation of wards for the Mapusa Municipal Council ought to have been notified sufficiently in advance so that prospective candidates could know the wards from which they would be eligible to contest and could accordingly prepare for the election. The petition was consequently presented on 1 April 2026 seeking a writ of mandamus for immediate publication of the reservation and rotation notification.

Since the relief sought in this Petition is precise and substantially defines the controversy with which the Petitioner originally approached this Court, the prayers are reproduced as they appear in the Petition:—

The Petitioner states that the term of the existing Mapusa Municipal Council was approaching its end and that the succeeding elected body was required to assume office upon completion of that term. In anticipation of the ensuing election, she addressed a representation dated 4 March 2026 to the Goa State Election Commission requesting immediate issuance of the notification concerning reservation and rotation of wards. The State Election Commission replied on 18 March 2026 stating that the election to the Mapusa Municipal Council would be conducted in accordance with the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 and the Goa Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1969 as amended from time to time. The Petitioner contends that this response did not answer the specific request as to when the reservation notification would actually be issued.

The foundation of the Petitioner's grievance lies in the earlier judicial consideration of the manner in which reservation notifications had been issued in municipal and local body elections in Goa. The Petitioner contend that reservation and rotation ought to be notified sufficiently in advance of commencement of the election process. She submits that notifications concerning delimitation and reservation would be issued at least three weeks before the election schedule.

According to the Petitioner, the object of advance publication is not merely administrative convenience. She asserts that a prospective candidate must know the constituency from which he or she can contest before the election process formally commences and that withholding the reservation or rotation of wards until the last moment deprives candidates of a reasonable opportunity to prepare and campaign in the constituency ultimately allotted to them. She further apprehends that delayed publication creates uncertainty and gives rise to allegations of manipulation at the final stage of the electoral exercise.

It is important to notice that, when this petition was filed, the Ordinance which subsequently became the principal subject of challenge in the other Petitions had not yet been promulgated. The Petitioner had approached this Court on the footing that the Respondents were bound to complete the reservation and rotation exercise under the law then in force and that their failure to do so was delaying the municipal election. The subsequent legislative change did not create the original cause of action in this petition. It intervened while that cause of action was already being examined by the Court and materially altered the statutory process which the Petitioner had sought to compel the Respondents to complete.

The last of the five Petitions in this group is Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2026 filed by Mr. Vallabh P. Prabhudessai, a resident of Quepem. This Petition was instituted after promulgation of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 and, apart from questioning the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and seeking enforcement of the mandate contained in Article 243U of the Constitution, raises an additional challenge which assumes some significance in the factual development of the present proceedings. The Petitioner has specifically challenged the subsequent decision of the State Election Commission dated 21 May 2026 by which the delimitation exercise undertaken in March 2026 was declared null and void. According to the Petitioner, substantial steps towards holding the elections had already been taken under the law then prevailing before the Ordinance intervened and the State Election Commission could not thereafter render that entire exercise infructuous.

In view of this additional challenge, and since the precise nature of the reliefs sought in each of these Petitions would have a bearing upon the questions which fall for our consideration, it would be appropriate to reproduce the substantive prayers made in this petition. They read thus:—

The Petitioner traces the controversy to the previous general elections to the Municipal Councils held in the year 2021. He refers to the expiry of the earlier municipal terms, appointment of Administrators, the subsequent delimitation and reservation exercise, and the litigation which arose in relation to the reservation notifications concerning Sanguem, Mormugao, Mapusa, Margao and Quepem Municipal Councils. The Petitioner states that the elections were eventually held in two phases, namely on 20 March 2021 in respect of Pernem, Bicholim, Valpoi, Cuncolim, Curchorem-Cacora and Canacona Municipal Councils and on 23 April 2021 in respect of the remaining affected Municipal Councils. He relies upon these circumstances to contend that the Respondents were fully aware of the period during which the succeeding municipal terms would expire and consequently of the constitutional requirement that the next elections be completed before such expiry.

The immediate factual basis of this petition, however, lies in the steps which were actually taken by the State Election Commission during February and March 2026. The Petitioner pleads that, by an order dated 27 February 2026, the State Election Commission initiated the process for division of the municipal areas into wards for the general elections of 2026 and appointed Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers. Thereafter, by an order dated 9 March 2026, the Commission adopted the electoral rolls of the Legislative Assembly as they stood on 1 January 2026 and had been published on 21 February 2026 for the purpose of division of the municipal areas into wards. This was followed by an order dated 25 March 2026 fixing the number of councillors to be elected to the eleven Municipal Councils.

The process thereafter proceeded further when the State Election Commission issued a public notice dated 30 March 2026 informing the public that the draft extent of the wards into which the respective municipal areas were proposed to be divided had been kept open for objections. The Petitioner states that he participated in this exercise as a voter of Ward No. 8 of the Quepem Municipal Council and, along with several other residents, submitted objections to the draft ward plan before the Electoral Registration Officer on 4 April 2026. Thus, according to the Petitioner, this was not a case where no preparatory exercise towards the ensuing municipal elections had commenced before promulgation of the Ordinance. The delimitation exercise had progressed to the stage where the proposed ward structure had been placed in the public domain and objections thereto had actually been received.

While this exercise was underway, the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 was promulgated by the Governor on 22 April 2026 and published in the Official Gazette on 23 April 2026. The Petitioner contends that the substituted Section 10 introduced an entirely different statutory sequence under which delimitation was required to be undertaken afresh, objections and suggestions were to be invited and considered, empirical data concerning political backwardness was thereafter to be obtained from the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes, and the process of reservation was then required to pass through another stage of draft publication, objections and final notification before the election could be declared. It is on this basis that the Petitioner alleges that application of the amended procedure to elections which had already fallen due would substantially postpone their conduct and defeat the mandate contained in Article 243U.

The Petitioner has placed particular emphasis upon the events which followed promulgation of the Ordinance. On 21 May 2026, the State Election Commission declared the delimitation process initiated in March 2026 null and void, with the result that the steps taken under the earlier statutory regime were brought to an end. The Petitioner questions this decision independently of his challenge to the Ordinance and contends that the State Election Commission could not invalidate an electoral exercise which had already progressed substantially merely because the subsequently amended. statutory framework was

Insofar as the Quepem Municipal Council itself is concerned, the Petitioner has also placed on record the notification dated 8 May 2026 by which an Administrator was appointed with effect from 10 May 2026 upon expiry of the term of the elected Municipal Council on 9 May 2026. Significantly, the notification itself records that the general election to the Quepem and Sanguem Municipal Councils was to be held in May 2026 and that the Government had approved the proposal of the State Election Commission to hold those elections during that month. The Petitioner relies upon this circumstance to contend that the election was contemplated within the constitutionally prescribed period before the subsequent statutory developments intervened.

The constitutional challenge raised in this petition is therefore founded upon three connected circumstances. The first is the alleged failure of the constitutional and statutory authorities to complete the municipal elections before expiry of the respective terms despite the mandate contained in Article 243U of the Constitution. The second is the promulgation of the Ordinance after substantial steps towards the elections had already been undertaken, which the Petitioner characterises as a colourable exercise of legislative power and also challenges on the ground that the circumstances necessary for exercise of power under Article 213 of the Constitution did not exist. The third is the subsequent decision of the State Election Commission to abandon the earlier delimitation exercise and commence the process under the amended statutory regime.

The Petitioner has, however, also formulated an alternative case which becomes material in view of the nature of the controversy before us. He submits that even if the Ordinance is otherwise held to be constitutionally valid, it ought not to be applied to municipal elections which had already fallen due before its promulgation and that those elections should instead be completed based on the pre-existing delimitation and electoral framework. It is therefore apparent that, although this petition seeks invalidation of the Ordinance, the ultimate object sought to be achieved by the Petitioner, even in the alternative, is the earliest possible restoration of elected municipal bodies in place of administration through appointed Administrators.

During the pendency of Writ Petition No. 1241 of 2026, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1756 of 2026 came to be filed by Mr. Damodar Ramnath Naik and Mr. Dhananjay Raghuvir Mayekar seeking permission to intervene in the proceedings. The application was filed on 29 June 2026 after the challenge to the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 had already been placed before the Court.

The applicants state that they wish to participate in future municipal elections and contend that the outcome of the present proceedings would therefore have a direct bearing upon their electoral rights and candidature. Their intervention is founded upon a perspective which is materially different from that advanced by the Petitioners challenging the Ordinance. According to the applicants, the amended Section 10 provides a statutory mechanism for obtaining empirical data concerning political backwardness before reservation is made in favour of the Other Backward Classes. They plead that accurate and reliable data concerning the representation and political backwardness of such classes was not adequately available during earlier elections and that the procedure introduced by the Ordinance is intended to remedy that deficiency. They therefore contend that implementation of the amended statutory regime would promote transparency and fairness in the reservation process rather than constitute an impediment to the electoral process.

The applicants have further pleaded that, since they belong to the category which may directly benefit from reservation made on the basis of the contemporaneous empirical exercise contemplated by the amended law, any order which sets aside the Ordinance or directs that the elections be held without giving effect to the amended provisions would directly affect their interests. It is on this basis that they seek an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and assist the Court while considering the challenge raised in Writ Petition No. 1241 of 2026.

Having noticed the individual Petitions and the reliefs sought therein, it is now necessary to place on record the subsequent developments which occurred after the controversy reached this Court. These developments assume considerable importance because the electoral process did not remain static during the pendency of the Petitions. The State Election Commission continued to act under the amended statutory regime and, by the time the hearing substantially progressed, several stages contemplated by the amended Sections 9 and 10 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 had either been completed or had reached an advanced stage.

The record shows that, immediately after the Ordinance was published in the Official Gazette on 23 April 2026, the Department of Urban Development addressed a communication dated 24 April 2026 to the State Election Commission forwarding the Ordinance and calling upon it to take necessary action in accordance with the amended provisions. The State Election Commission thereafter addressed the Directorate of Planning, Statistics and Evaluation on 28 April 2026 seeking municipal-area-wise population figures for the eleven Municipal Councils in view of the change brought about by the Ordinance. The requisite population figures, based upon the Census of 2011, were furnished to the Commission on 29 April 2026.

The population figures so received became the foundation for the fresh exercise under amended Section 9 because the Ordinance had substituted "population" for "voters" and had altered the numerical benchmark from 2,500 to 3,000 for determining the number of elected Councillors. On 7 May 2026, the State Election Commission forwarded the matter to the Government for the consultation required for fixing the number of elected Councillors under the amended population-based framework. It was in this setting that the earlier delimitation exercise undertaken under the unamended law ceased to be pursued.

On 21 May 2026, the State Election Commission formally declared the earlier process of delimitation of municipal wards initiated in March 2026 to be null and void in view of the amended statutory regime. The legality of this decision has been specifically questioned in Writ Petition No. 1572 of 2026. For the purpose of the present narration, however, what is material is that, from that date onwards, the Commission proceeded on the basis that the ensuing elections would have to be conducted by completing the exercise contemplated by the amended Sections 9 and 10.

The amended Section 10 contemplates a structured sequence. After the number of wards is fixed under Section 10(1), the State Election Commission is required to undertake delimitation under Section 10(2). A draft delimitation must then be published under Section 10(3) inviting objections and suggestions from the public for a period of thirty days. After considering such objections and completing consultation with the Government, the final notification of delimitation is required to be issued. Only thereafter is empirical data pertaining to political backwardness to be obtained from the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes under Section 10(4). Upon receipt of such data, a draft reservation notification is required to be published under Section 10(5), followed by consideration of objections and issuance of the final reservation notification under Section 10(6). Section 10(7) thereafter provides that the election may be declared after expiry of thirty days from publication of the final reservation notification.

During the hearing, the State Election Commission placed on record that the stages contemplated by Sections 10(1) and 10(2) had already been completed and that the draft delimitation contemplated by Section 10(3) had also been published. The Commission informed the Court that the statutory period of thirty days for filing objections to the draft delimitation was then running. It was therefore apparent that the controversy had moved substantially beyond the position which existed when the Petitions were originally instituted.

It was in this background that, during the hearing, we called upon the State Election Commission to place before us a precise stage-wise statement indicating which periods prescribed by the amended law were mandatory, which administrative steps could be compressed, which stages could proceed simultaneously and what was the minimum period within which the entire exercise could lawfully be completed. The purpose of seeking this information was not to rewrite the statutory timetable, but to ascertain whether the outer periods contemplated by the legislation necessarily had to be exhausted when the elections had already crossed the constitutional dates contemplated by Article 243U of the Constitution.

The State Election Commission thereafter placed a detailed chart before the Court. The chart records that the thirty-day period for filing objections to the draft delimitation is treated by the Commission as a mandatory statutory period. After expiry of that period, the Commission states that consideration of objections, finalisation of the delimitation, consultation with the Government and publication of the final delimitation notification can, if the consultation process is completed expeditiously, be concluded within approximately three weeks.

The next stage identified by the State Election Commission concerns reservation in favour of the Other Backward Classes. Section 10(4) requires empirical data pertaining to political backwardness to be obtained from the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes after finalisation of delimitation. The State Election Commission fairly stated in its chart that the time required for this exercise would depend upon the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes because the empirical material has to be furnished by that Commission. It was this stage which initially remained without a definite statutory or administrative timetable.

Once the requisite empirical data is received, the State Election Commission proposes to publish the draft reservation notification. The Commission treats the thirty-day period for inviting objections to the draft reservation as mandatory. It has further estimated that scrutiny of the objections, consultation with the Government and publication of the final reservation notification can be completed within approximately twenty days and consultation on the Government side is also undertaken without delay.

The Commission has thereafter proceeded on the footing that Section 10(7) requires expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the final reservation notification before the elections can be declared. After the election is declared, the actual election programme comprising nomination, scrutiny, withdrawal, polling and declaration of result is stated to require approximately twenty-five days. Significantly, the State Election Commission has stated that, subject to compliance with the minimum periods identified by it and timely completion of consultation by the Government, there is no constitutional or statutory impediment for completing the election process within the timetable placed before this Court.

The material placed by the State Election Commission also throws light upon the position which would have obtained had the Ordinance not intervened. The Commission states that, by 22 April 2026, the draft delimitation under the then existing law had been prepared and had been forwarded to the Government for consultation. According to the Commission, subject to completion of that consultation and the subsequent reservation exercise, the elections under the earlier regime could have been concluded by the end of May 2026 or, at the latest, during the first week of June 2026. We record this statement because it is relevant to the extent to which the electoral process had progressed before the change in law, though its legal effect will be considered separately.

As the hearing progressed, it became apparent that the principal uncertainty in the remaining timetable arose from the exercise required to be undertaken by the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes. The Commission was therefore impleaded in Writ Petition No. 300 of 2026 and was called upon to place its position before this Court. In the affidavit filed by its Member Secretary, the Commission states that it is the dedicated Commission required to undertake the contemporaneous, rigorous and empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of political backwardness qua local bodies for the purpose of reservation in favour of the Other Backward Classes.

The affidavit of the Backward Classes Commission assumes importance because it clarifies the material which is already available with it. The Commission states that the empirical inquiry will be undertaken on the basis of the Census of 2011 and the survey report prepared by the Centre for Development, Planning and Research in the year 2013 concerning the OBC, SC and ST population in the State of Goa, including material relating to the eleven Municipal Councils involved in these proceedings. The Commission thus does not suggest that the exercise must begin with a fresh census or that no foundational demographic material presently exists. The affidavit further records that the Backward Classes Commission had earlier considered it necessary to await instructions from the Government and the State Election Commission before commencing the contemporaneous empirical inquiry because the process of delimitation was itself undergoing change. It thereafter stated, in view of what transpired during the hearing before this Court on 4 August 2026, that it would commence the empirical exercise without awaiting further directions from either the Government or the State Election Commission and would proceed on the basis of the material already available with it.

The significance of this development is that the empirical inquiry and the delimitation exercise need not, in every respect, proceed one after another. The Backward Classes Commission has accepted that substantial work forming part of the contemporaneous empirical inquiry can commence on the basis of municipality-wise material already available with it even before the final ward boundaries are communicated. The final application of that material to the wards would necessarily depend upon the delimitation which is ultimately notified, but the entire empirical exercise need not remain in abeyance until that stage is reached. We are recording this only as a development which emerged during the hearing. The constitutional significance of simultaneous performance of interdependent electoral functions will be considered when we deal with the issues arising for determination.

There is one aspect of the record concerning the period required by the Backward Classes Commission which requires care. During hearing, different estimates were referred to while the precise methodology and work involved were being examined. The affidavit ultimately filed by the Commission states that it would require a minimum period of thirty days for completing the contemporaneous, rigorous and empirical inquiry in respect of the eleven Municipalities, subject to availability of adequate staff and resources. The Commission has also stated that it presently has limited staff and that additional assistance may have to be provided by the State whenever required. We shall therefore proceed based on the period stated by the Commission in its affidavit rather than any earlier tentative estimate referred to during the hearing.

The material placed before us consequently enables the remaining process to be viewed in identifiable stages rather than as an open-ended exercise. The statutory objection periods prescribed by the amended Section 10 remain as provided by the Legislature. The administrative time required for consideration of objections, consultation and publication of notifications has been identified by the State Election Commission and is capable of being undertaken within compressed periods if the authorities act contemporaneously and with due expedition. The empirical exercise required for OBC reservation has also now been assigned a definite period by the Backward Classes Commission and, more importantly, has already been directed to commence without awaiting completion of every remaining stage of delimitation.

These developments have materially altered the practical context in which the Petitions now fall to be decided. When some of the Petitions were instituted, the apprehension expressed was that implementation of the amended Section 10 could postpone the municipal elections for an indefinite or substantially prolonged period. The record now before us enables the Court to identify the exact statutory steps which remains and the authority responsible for each step and the approximate minimum period within which the administrative components of those steps can be completed. The constitutional question, however, remains whether this subsequent progress sufficiently answers the infraction of Article 243U of the Constitution and in what manner the Court should ensure that no further avoidable delay occurs while preserving the operation of the law presently occupying the field.

Before we proceed to record and consider the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, the State Election Commission, the interveners and the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes, we think it appropriate to first notice the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions governing municipal elections, delimitation, reservation and the duration of Municipalities. This would provide the necessary framework for considering the rival submissions.

Part IX-A of the Constitution was introduced by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 with the object of giving constitutional status to institutions of urban local self-government. Article 243P of the Constitution contains the definitions applicable to this Part of the Constitution. Clause (g) defines "population" to mean the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published.

Article 243R of the Constitution deals with the composition of Municipalities and provides that, save as otherwise provided in clause (2), all seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the municipal area and, for that purpose, each municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards. The provision reads thus:—

Article 243T of the Constitution deals with reservation of seats in Municipalities. Clauses (1) and (2) provide for reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in the municipal area and for reservation of not less than one-third of such seats for women belonging to those categories. Clause (3) provides for reservation of not less than one-third of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election for women. Clause (6), however, expressly enables the Legislature of a State to make provision for reservation of seats or offices of Chairpersons in favour of backward classes of citizens.

Article 243U of the Constitution, which lies at the centre of the present controversy, prescribes the duration of Municipalities and the time within which elections are required to be completed. Insofar as relevant, it provides:—

Article 243ZA of the Constitution entrusts the constitutional responsibility for municipal elections to the State Election Commission. Clause (1) provides that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall vest in the State Election Commission referred to in Article 243K of the Constitution. Clause (2), at the same time, preserves the legislative power of the State Legislature to make provisions with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to Municipalities, subject to the provisions of the Constitution.

The constitutional scheme therefore entrusts the conduct of municipal elections to an independent constitutional authority while leaving it to the State Legislature to prescribe the statutory framework governing those elections. The exercise of either power remains subject to the Constitution and to the mandate contained in Article 243U of the Constitution that an election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed before expiry of its five-year duration.

It is in the backdrop of these constitutional provisions that Sections 9 and 10 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 assume significance. Section 9 deals with the composition of Municipal Councils and the determination of the number of elected Councillors, whereas Section 10 provides the machinery for division of the municipal area into wards and reservation of seats. Both provisions underwent material changes upon promulgation of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026. It would therefore be necessary to notice the provisions as they stood immediately before the Ordinance and thereafter the provisions substituted by the Ordinance.

Since the controversy substantially turns upon the changes brought about in Sections 9 and 10 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, it would be appropriate to notice these provisions as they stood immediately before promulgation of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 and thereafter the amendments introduced by the Ordinance.

Position immediately before the Ordinance. Section 9, insofar as relevant for the present controversy, then read thus:—

Section 10, as it then stood, provided as follows:—

The Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 was promulgated by the Governor on 22 April 2026 and published in the Official Gazette on 23 April 2026. The Ordinance expressly provided that it would come into force at once.

Insofar as Section 9 is concerned, the Ordinance did not substitute the entire provision. It amended Section 9(2)(a) in the following terms:—

Section 10, on the other hand, was substituted in its entirety and the substituted provision reads thus:—

A comparison of the two statutory Schemes shows the changes which are material for the present controversy. Section 9 now determines the number of elected Councillors by reference to population instead of voters, while increasing the relevant numerical unit from 2,500 to 3,000. The earlier Section 10 contemplated delimitation and reservation substantially as part of one exercise, whereas the substituted Section 10 prescribes successive stages of delimitation, publication of draft delimitation, consideration of objections, final delimitation, procurement of empirical data pertaining to political backwardness, draft reservation, objections to reservation and final reservation before the election can be declared. Specific time schedules have also been prescribed for several of these stages within which each exercise is required to be completed and by following what procedure.

Having noticed the constitutional and statutory framework governing the controversy, we shall now consider the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Though the Petitions proceed on somewhat different grounds and the reliefs sought are not identical, the central submission common to them is that the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243U cannot be defeated or indefinitely postponed by introducing a legislative measure after the process for holding the ensuing municipal elections had already commenced. We shall, however, notice separately the submissions advanced in each petition since the challenge has been presented from different constitutional and factual perspectives.

Before doing so, it is necessary to clarify one aspect which emerged during the hearing. The Petitioners did not dispute the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact a law governing the composition of Municipal Councils, delimitation of wards or reservation of seats. Their principal challenge was directed against the manner and point of time at which the new statutory regime was brought into operation and its consequence upon elections which, according to them, were constitutionally required to have been completed before expiry of the existing Municipal Councils. It was submitted that an otherwise permissible exercise of legislative power cannot be so employed as to render the command of Article 243U of the Constitution ineffective.

The Petitioners accordingly urged that the controversy is not to be examined merely by asking whether the State Legislature possesses legislative competence to amend Sections 9 and 10. According to them, the Court must examine the actual constitutional consequence of applying the amended provisions to the elections which had already become due. Their submission is that if the immediate application of the Ordinance necessarily results in postponement of those elections beyond the constitutionally prescribed period, the Court is required to protect the mandate of Article 243U of the Constitution by issuing appropriate directions under Article 226.

Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners represented by him, submitted that Article 243U embodies a constitutional command which admits of no postponement on account of administrative or legislative steps undertaken after the elections had become due. According to him, the constitutional obligation was not merely to commence the process of election before expiry of the respective Municipal Councils but to complete the elections and ensure constitution of the succeeding elected bodies before expiry of their five-year tenure. He submitted that the State Government and the State Election Commission were throughout aware of the dates on which the respective terms would expire and were therefore required to undertake every preparatory exercise sufficiently in advance so that the mandate of Article 243U(3)(a) was complied with.

Learned Counsel submitted that the State Election Commission had in fact commenced the exercise for holding the elections under the law then prevailing and that the process had progressed considerably before the Ordinance was promulgated. The number of Councillors had been determined, the exercise of delimitation had commenced, draft wards had been published and objections had been invited. According to him, there was therefore no factual impediment which prevented the authorities from completing the remaining exercise and holding the elections within the constitutionally prescribed period. The subsequent legislative intervention, according to him, cannot retrospectively justify the failure to perform a constitutional obligation which had already arisen.

Mr. Padgaonkar placed considerable reliance upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad². He submitted that the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the five-year duration prescribed by Article 243U and the requirement that elections be completed before its expiry are mandatory and that neither revision of electoral rolls nor other preparatory exercises can ordinarily constitute a justification for postponing municipal elections. According to him, once the constitutional authority knows when the tenure of the elected body will expire, it is obliged to arrange all antecedent statutory exercises around that immutable constitutional date and not the constitutional date around the administrative exercise.

Learned Counsel then relied upon Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh³, to submit that the Supreme Court has carried the principle in Kishansing Tomar (supra) further and has described the obligation to hold local body elections within the constitutional period as inviolable. He emphasised that an ongoing delimitation or formation of wards cannot ordinarily be invoked as a legitimate ground for withholding the election programme. His submission was that what cannot constitutionally be accomplished through executive inaction cannot be accomplished indirectly by introducing a fresh statutory process after the election has become due.

It was in this context that Mr. Padgaonkar questioned the timing of the Ordinance. He submitted that the challenge was not founded merely upon the proposition that the Legislature could never alter the basis for determining the number of Councillors or prescribe a different procedure for delimitation and reservation. His contention was that the Ordinance was promulgated at a stage when the terms of some of the Municipal Councils had already expired, the terms of the remaining Councils were shortly to expire and the State Election Commission had already undertaken substantial steps under the existing law. According to him, the immediate application of a new and substantially longer statutory procedure at that stage necessarily ensured that compliance with Article 243U became impossible.

Learned Counsel submitted that this consequence assumes importance while examining the exercise of power under Article 213. He contended that there was no material demonstrating any sudden or unforeseen circumstance which required the statutory regime to be altered through an Ordinance at that particular stage. According to him, if the State considered the existing statutory mechanism deficient, there was nothing which prevented it from undertaking the amendment sufficiently in advance. He relied upon the chronology preceding the Ordinance to contend that unsettling an electoral exercise which had been underway for a considerable period at the very stage when the elections were required to be completed called for a satisfactory constitutional explanation.

Mr. Padgaonkar further submitted that the challenge to the Ordinance was founded upon colourable exercise of power and manifest arbitrariness. According to him, the Court is entitled, while examining such a challenge, to consider not merely the form of the legislation but its direct effect and consequence. He submitted that the immediate consequence of the Ordinance was that an election which was otherwise approaching completion under the existing statutory framework was abandoned and replaced by an exercise containing several successive stages extending substantially beyond the expiry of the elected Municipal Councils. The pleadings themselves characterise the Ordinance as manifestly arbitrary on account of the procedural delays introduced while the municipal elections remained overdue.

Learned Counsel also addressed the contention that the amendment was necessary because Section 9 previously determined the number of Councillors by reference to voters whereas the Ordinance substituted population. He submitted that this circumstance by itself could not retrospectively invalidate the electoral exercise already undertaken under a law which was then valid and operative. According to him, the Legislature undoubtedly possessed the power to alter the statutory basis prospectively, but the existence of a legislative preference for a different basis could not furnish a constitutional justification for allowing elections already due under Article 243U to remain indefinitely postponed.

Mr. Padgaonkar thereafter dealt with the decisions of the Karnataka High Court concerning the municipal elections in that State and the subsequent orders passed by the Supreme Court. He relied upon the reasoning adopted by the Karnataka High Court to contend that a legislative amendment introduced after elections had become due should not be permitted to defeat the mandate of Article 243U and that the election could be completed under the statutory regime which governed when the constitutional obligation arose. At the same time, he sought to distinguish the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court concerning Bengaluru on the ground that those proceedings arose from the peculiar restructuring of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and the statutory changes made in that context. He submitted that those interim orders cannot be understood as laying down a general proposition that every subsequent legislative intervention automatically overrides the temporal mandate of Article 243U. The recorded submissions specifically distinguish the Bengaluru situation from the present controversy on this basis.

Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vaibhav Pandey versus State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban Development, Civil Secrt. Lok. And Another⁴ to meet the contention that reservation and the empirical inquiry concerning backward classes must necessarily precede the election irrespective of the resulting delay. He submitted that the constitutional requirements concerning reservation are undoubtedly required to be observed, but that the exercise undertaken for that purpose cannot be permitted to result in an indefinite displacement of elected local government. He particularly relied upon the reasoning that, notwithstanding the magnitude of the empirical exercise required for backward-class reservation, formation of an elected municipal body cannot be indefinitely delayed in the face of Article 243U.

Mr. Padgaonkar therefore submitted that Article 243U must remain the controlling constitutional consideration. According to him, provisions concerning composition, delimitation and reservation are required to be harmoniously implemented, but none of those provisions can be administered in a manner which renders the express temporal command contained in Article 243U ineffective. He accordingly urged that this Court should issue a time-bound mandamus requiring the State Election Commission to proceed with the elections without permitting the subsequently introduced statutory exercise to become a justification for continuing administration of the Municipal Councils through appointed Administrators.

Mr. Padgaonkar then addressed the challenge from the perspective of Article 213 of the Constitution. He clarified that the Petitioners were not questioning the legislative competence of the State to amend the Goa Municipalities Act nor were they contending that the subject matter of the Ordinance was beyond the legislative field available to the State. His submission was that the extraordinary power of promulgating an Ordinance could be exercised only when circumstances existed which rendered immediate legislative action necessary and that the existence of such circumstances was open to judicial scrutiny within the limited parameters recognised by the Supreme Court.

Developing this submission, learned Counsel invited our attention to the chronology preceding the Ordinance. He submitted that the basis of 2,500 voters contained in the existing Section 9 had been operating for several years, the census figures relied upon by the State were themselves of 2011, the judgments concerning reservation and the Triple Test were already in existence and the State Election Commission had been proceeding with the municipal election exercise with the knowledge and participation of the State Government for a considerable period. According to him, when nothing constitutionally or factually new had arisen immediately before April 2026, the State was required to disclose what circumstance suddenly necessitated recourse to Article 213 at a stage when the election process had substantially progressed and the terms of the Municipal Councils were either over or were about to expire.

In support of this submission, Mr. Padgaonkar relied upon A.K. Roy v. Union of India And Others⁵ and the subsequent exposition of the law governing judicial review of the satisfaction underlying the exercise of Ordinance-making power. He submitted that the Court was not being invited to examine the adequacy or sufficiency of the material upon which such satisfaction was reached. According to him, the narrower enquiry was whether there existed any relevant contemporaneous material at all which could demonstrate the circumstances requiring immediate action at that particular point of time. He contended that, apart from the affidavit of the Director of Municipal Administration and the justification subsequently advanced during the hearing, no material had been placed before the Court explaining why an Ordinance became immediately necessary only when the municipal elections had become due. The proposition advanced by him was that existence of relevant material is judicially examinable although its adequacy is not.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the challenge on the ground of colourable exercise of power had specifically been pleaded and was not an allegation introduced for the first time during oral arguments. According to him, the expression "fraud on the Constitution", in this context, was not employed in the sense of fraud understood in private law but to contend that a constitutional power had been used as a device to achieve indirectly a result which could not directly be achieved consistently with Article 243U. He relied upon the sequence of events commencing with the preparatory election exercise and culminating in the promulgation of the Ordinance at what he described as the eleventh hour to contend that the State was required to satisfactorily explain why an electoral exercise undertaken over a substantial period was required to be undone at that stage.

Mr. Padgaonkar also submitted that the validity of the Ordinance could not be examined in isolation from its actual effect upon the constitutional process. According to him, six Municipal Councils had already completed their tenure when the Ordinance was brought into force while the terms of the remaining Councils were shortly thereafter to expire. The successive periods contemplated by substituted Section 10 made it impossible, even on the date of promulgation of the Ordinance, to complete the entire exercise before expiry of the remaining Councils. He therefore submitted that the consequence of the legislation was not an incidental administrative delay but an inevitable postponement of elections beyond the period contemplated by Article 243U.

Considerable argument was also addressed by Mr. Padgaonkar upon the decisions arising from Karnataka. His submission was that the decision of the Karnataka High Court rendered by Justice A.S. Oka had proceeded on the principle that a subsequent legislative intervention could not be applied so as to defeat elections which had already become constitutionally due and that the elections concerned could proceed under the law which governed them before the amendment. When confronted with the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court, learned Counsel sought to distinguish the Bengaluru proceedings on the ground that the municipal structure itself had thereafter undergone a fundamental statutory reorganisation and fresh delimitation consequently became unavoidable. He contended that the indulgence granted in those peculiar circumstances could not be elevated into a general proposition that every amendment introduced after elections become due must necessarily restart an existing electoral process.

Insofar as the proceedings concerning Vijayapura were concerned, learned Counsel maintained that the Karnataka litigation had to be understood in its successive statutory and procedural stages and that the later orders could not be read as diluting the constitutional requirement of Article 243U. He ultimately relied upon the Karnataka decisions for the narrower proposition that a legislative intervention made during an ongoing electoral process cannot, merely by reason of its timing, furnish an unrestricted power to postpone an election which the Constitution requires to be completed within a fixed period.

Mr. Padgaonkar thereafter answered the submission concerning the requirement of empirical data for reservation of backward classes. He submitted that the constitutional importance of lawful reservation was not disputed by the Petitioners. His contention, however, was that an exercise for collection or updating of empirical material could not be commenced so belatedly as to become the reason for defeating Article 243U. He emphasised that the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes was a continuously functioning statutory body and that the requirement of empirical inquiry for political reservation in local bodies had not arisen for the first time in April 2026. According to him, the absence of institutional preparedness could not itself furnish a constitutional justification for postponing elections.

In this context, learned Counsel placed reliance upon Vaibhav Pandey, (supra). He submitted that even while recognising the necessity of empirical inquiry for backward-class reservation and the magnitude of that exercise, the Court had emphasised that constitution of elected municipal bodies could not indefinitely await completion of such an exercise because of the mandate contained in Article 243U. According to him, the requirements of reservation and timely elections had to be implemented harmoniously, and the former could not be converted into a ground for extinguishing the latter.

Learned Counsel finally submitted that the controversy had to be examined by maintaining the constitutional hierarchy. Article 243U, according to him, fixes the outer constitutional limit within which an elected municipal body must be succeeded through the electoral process. A law enacted by the State in exercise of its legislative competence undoubtedly binds the State Election Commission while it remains operative, but such law cannot claim an operation which defeats an express command of the Constitution. His submission therefore was that the Court could neither treat the delay as a matter of mere arithmetic nor permit successive statutory periods introduced by ordinary legislation to effectively enlarge a constitutional timeline.

109A. In further support of the submission that the constitutional obligation to hold elections cannot ordinarily be postponed on account of a belated delimitation or reservation exercise, Mr. Padgaonkar relied upon Beant Kumar v. State of Punjab and others⁶, and Virendrasinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat and others⁷. He submitted that these decisions reinforce the principle that preparatory electoral exercises must be undertaken sufficiently in advance and cannot be permitted to become a justification for withholding elections which have become constitutionally due. The controversy in Beant Kumar (supra) itself concerned whether municipal and local-body elections could be delayed on account of a pending delimitation exercise.

109B. Learned Counsel also relied upon Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat⁸, while dealing with the constitutional scheme governing the composition of Municipalities under Articles 243R and 243ZA. He submitted that the judgment recognises the legislative competence of the State in matters concerning the composition and structure of Municipalities, but equally makes it clear that such legislation remains subject to Part IX-A of the Constitution. He therefore relied upon the decision to contend that the existence of legislative competence does not answer a challenge founded upon inconsistency between the operation of a State law and a constitutional mandate.

109C. On the question of reservation, Mr. Padgaonkar relied upon Naresh Krishna Gaunekar v. State of Goa⁹, Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra¹⁰, and Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra¹¹. He submitted that these authorities recognise, on the one hand, the constitutional requirement of providing reservation in accordance with law and, on the other, the necessity of complying with the Triple Test before providing political reservation for Other Backward Classes. His submission, however, was that the requirement of completing the Triple Test cannot be invoked after the elections have become due as a ground for indefinitely postponing them. The later orders following Vikas Gawali (supra) expressly reiterate that elections already due cannot be delayed merely because the Triple Test remains incomplete.

109D. Mr. Padgaonkar further relied upon the decision of this Court in Sandeep Vazarkar v. State of Goa and others¹², together with the connected Petitions, for the proposition that elections to local bodies are required to be completed within the constitutionally prescribed tenure and that the constitutional responsibility in that regard rests not merely upon the State Election Commission but also upon the State and other authorities concerned with the electoral process. The judgment was specifically included in the compilation relied upon by him.

109E. Learned Counsel also placed reliance upon State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh¹³, particularly for the constitutional position of the State Election Commission under Article 243ZA. According to him, the decision recognises that the Commission is not powerless when faced with a constitutional or statutory infraction and may insist upon its correction before proceeding with the election. He relied upon this principle to submit that the Commission's obligation is ultimately to the Constitution and that it cannot treat an executive or statutory impediment as sufficient justification for allowing the constitutional timeline governing elections to remain unfulfilled.

109F. Lastly, Mr. Padgaonkar relied upon the Karnataka decisions in Vinayak v. State of Karnataka¹⁴, and M.R. Anand v. State of Karnataka,¹⁵. He submitted that these decisions proceeded on the principle that where municipal elections had already become due, a subsequent statutory or delimitation exercise could not ordinarily be permitted to restart the electoral clock and postpone the election indefinitely. He relied upon them along with the Karnataka line of cases already noticed above to support his submission that the constitutional due date of an election cannot be displaced merely because a subsequent legislative or delimitation exercise is introduced.

We shall now advert to the submissions advanced by Mr. Gosavi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the connected petition. While adopting the submissions already advanced on the binding character of Article 243U and the constitutional obligation to hold elections before expiry of the tenure of the Municipal Councils, Mr. Gosavi developed the challenge to the Ordinance from a somewhat different perspective. His principal submission was that the State could undoubtedly exercise its legislative power in the field of municipal elections, but such power could not be exercised at a point of time and in a manner which had the inevitable effect of defeating an express constitutional command.

Mr. Gosavi submitted that Article 243U was not merely a provision prescribing the ordinary tenure of a Municipality. According to him, the expression employed by the Constitution that every Municipality shall continue for five years "and no longer", read with clause (3), which requires an election to constitute a Municipality to be completed before expiry of its duration, constitutes a mandatory constitutional limitation which neither the executive nor the legislature could indirectly enlarge. He submitted that the constitutional obligation was therefore not merely to commence preparations for an election before expiry of the tenure but to ensure that the election itself was completed within the period prescribed by the Constitution.

To demonstrate the significance of this constitutional limitation, learned Counsel drew a comparison between Articles 83(2), 172(1), 243E and 243U. He submitted that the Constitution has consciously employed substantially similar language while prescribing the duration of the House of the People, the Legislative Assemblies, Panchayats and Municipalities. According to him, these provisions embody the constitutional insistence that democratic institutions cannot be continued beyond their constitutionally prescribed tenure merely because some legislative or administrative exercise remains incomplete. He therefore submitted that an ordinary legislation or an Ordinance could not accomplish indirectly what the Constitution itself did not permit directly.

It was in this context that Mr. Gosavi described the Ordinance as a legislative intervention which, although ostensibly concerned with population-based representation and delimitation, had to be examined with reference to the point of time at which it was promulgated and the consequence which necessarily followed from its implementation. He submitted that if a State could wait until the election process had substantially progressed and the tenure of the elected bodies was about to expire and thereafter introduce a new statutory regime requiring the entire process to be undertaken afresh, the mandatory character of Article 243U could be rendered ineffective by successive legislative interventions.

Mr. Gosavi was careful to accept that the existence of Article 243U did not denude the State Legislature of its legislative competence in relation to municipal elections. When this aspect was specifically put to him during the hearing, he accepted that the State continued to possess the power to legislate even when municipal elections were due. His submission, however, was that the existence of legislative competence and the constitutional validity of the manner in which that competence was exercised were two different questions. According to him, every exercise of legislative power remained subordinate to the Constitution and could therefore be examined where its timing and operation resulted in the frustration of another mandatory constitutional provision.

Mr. Gosavi then carried this submission to Article 213 of the Constitution. He contended that the present measure was not legislation enacted in the ordinary course by the State Legislature but an Ordinance promulgated in exercise of an extraordinary constitutional power which itself required the existence of circumstances rendering immediate action necessary. According to him, therefore, apart from examining the legislative competence of the State, the Court was entitled to examine whether circumstances existed which could constitutionally sustain recourse to the Ordinance-making power at that particular point of time.

In support of this proposition, Mr. Gosavi placed considerable reliance upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (supra) and, more particularly, upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (supra). He submitted that the satisfaction contemplated while exercising the Ordinance-making power does not enjoy absolute immunity from judicial review. He fairly accepted that the Court would not examine the adequacy or sufficiency of the material which formed the basis of such satisfaction, but submitted that the existence of relevant material and the existence of circumstances requiring immediate legislative action were themselves matters which could be judicially examined.

On the factual application of this principle, Mr. Gosavi submitted that there was no sudden development immediately preceding the promulgation of the Ordinance which could explain the necessity for legislative intervention at that stage. The 2011 census figures were available for several years. The constitutional provisions governing Municipalities had remained unchanged. The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the State were not rendered immediately before the Ordinance. The State was aware of the dates on which the terms of the Municipal Councils would expire and was equally aware that the State Election Commission had already commenced the preparatory exercise for conducting their elections. He therefore questioned what circumstance arose only in April 2026 which made immediate recourse to Article 213 necessary.

Learned Counsel submitted that this question assumed greater significance because the electoral exercise had not remained dormant until promulgation of the Ordinance. According to him, the State Election Commission had been corresponding with the State authorities, the relevant information had been supplied by the Directorate of Municipal Administration and substantial steps towards delimitation and the ensuing elections had already been undertaken. The State Government was consequently aware not only of the impending expiry of the Municipal Councils but also of the stage to which the electoral exercise had progressed. It was against this background that he characterised the introduction of the Ordinance at the last stage as a colourable exercise of constitutional power.

Mr. Gosavi submitted that the expression "fraud on the Constitution", as employed by the Petitioners, had to be understood in this constitutional sense. According to him, the allegation was not one of personal fraud or individual mala fides against any particular functionary. The contention was that a constitutional power had been employed as a device to produce a consequence which the Constitution prohibited, namely postponement of elections beyond the period prescribed by Article 243U. He submitted that where an act which could not constitutionally be accomplished directly was sought to be achieved through the interposition of ordinary legislation or an Ordinance, the Court was entitled to examine the substance and effect of the exercise rather than its form.

Mr. Gosavi accordingly submitted that the supremacy of the Constitution, which constitutes one of the foundational features of the constitutional structure, would be seriously impaired if an ordinary law were treated as sufficient justification for non-compliance with an express constitutional deadline. His criticism of the stand adopted by the Respondents was that it effectively required the State Election Commission to follow the subsequently enacted law notwithstanding that the inevitable consequence of doing so was failure to complete the elections within the period mandated by Article 243U. According to him, Article 243ZA undoubtedly requires the State Election Commission to act in accordance with law, but the law contemplated by Article 243ZA itself remains subordinate to the Constitution and cannot acquire precedence over Article 243U.

Learned Counsel then dealt with the practical consequence of accepting the Respondents' proposition. He submitted that if a legislative intervention introduced shortly before expiry of an elected body could itself furnish sufficient justification for restarting the election process, the constitutional limitation would become vulnerable to repeated postponement. He illustrated the submission by referring to the corresponding constitutional provisions prescribing the tenure of Panchayats, Legislative Assemblies and Parliament and contended that the constitutional principle could not vary merely because the present controversy concerned Municipal Councils. His submission was that the Court must guard against a principle which would permit an ordinary legislative measure to neutralise a constitutionally fixed democratic tenure.

Mr. Gosavi further submitted that the difficulty could not be answered by stating that the Ordinance sought to advance another constitutional objective. He did not dispute the importance of population-based representation, proper delimitation or constitutionally permissible reservation. His submission was that these objectives were known to the State sufficiently in advance and ought to have been pursued in a manner which enabled their completion without violating Article 243U. According to him, the State could not remain inactive when sufficient time was available and thereafter rely upon the very exercise which it belatedly commenced as justification for postponing constitutionally mandated elections

Mr. Gosavi then demonstrated his submission by reference to the actual dates on which the terms of the eleven Municipal Councils were due to expire. He pointed out that the Ordinance was promulgated on 22 April 2026, by which time the terms of several Municipal Councils had already expired, whereas the terms of the remaining Councils were to expire shortly thereafter. The record shows that the terms of Bicholim, Curchorem, Canacona and Pernem Municipal Councils expired on 31 March 2026, that of Cuncolim on 5 April 2026 and that of Valpoi on 8 April 2026. The terms of Quepem and Sanguem were to expire on 9 May 2026, whereas those of Margao, Mormugao and Mapusa were to expire on 26 May 2026.

Learned Counsel submitted that these dates were important because the constitutional deadline under Article 243U had to be worked backwards and not forwards. According to him, if the election programme itself required a minimum period for nominations, scrutiny, withdrawal, polling and declaration of results, the preparatory exercise had necessarily to be completed sufficiently before the last date of the existing Municipal Council. The constitutional mandate could not, according to him, be understood as permitting the State Election Commission to wait until the last date of the tenure and only thereafter commence the election process.

Mr. Gosavi submitted that the impossibility became evident upon comparing these dates with the procedure introduced by substituted Section 10. The new provision contemplated fixation of wards, an exercise of delimitation for which a period of sixty days was provided, publication of draft delimitation followed by thirty days for objections and suggestions, consideration of those objections and final delimitation, procurement of empirical data concerning political backwardness, publication of draft reservation followed by another thirty-day objection period, final reservation and thereafter a further period of thirty days before declaration of the elections. His submission was that, quite apart from the actual time required for the empirical inquiry and the election programme, the statutory architecture introduced on 22 April 2026 made compliance with the impending constitutional deadlines impossible.

According to learned Counsel, this demonstrated an important distinction between an unforeseen administrative impediment arising during an election and a statutory scheme which, from the date on which it was introduced, necessarily carried the election beyond the constitutional date. He submitted that the present case belonged to the latter category. The consequence complained of was therefore inherent in the immediate application of the Ordinance to these eleven Municipal Councils and was not the result of some subsequent or unexpected circumstance.

Mr. Gosavi also answered the submission that applying the earlier law to some Municipal Councils and the amended law to others would create an anomalous situation. He submitted that the relevant constitutional date for each Municipality was the date on which its tenure expired and that Article 243U operated independently in relation to each elected body. According to him, the possibility that different Municipal Councils might consequently fall to be governed by different statutory regimes could not override the constitutional requirement applicable to each of them. The transcript records his submission that the true enquiry was when the mandate under Article 243U "kicks in" and that, since the election itself requires time for completion, the process necessarily has to commence before the terminal date.

Learned Counsel then addressed the State's justification that the amendment was intended to replace the voters-based criterion by a population-based criterion and thereby improve the representative character of Municipal Councils. He submitted that this might explain the legislative policy underlying the amendment, but it did not answer the constitutional question concerning its timing. According to him, there was a fundamental distinction between asking why the Legislature considered population to be a preferable basis and asking why that change had to be brought into force by an Ordinance in April 2026 after the election exercise had commenced. His submission was that the Respondents had substantially answered the former but not the latter.

Mr. Gosavi further submitted that the State could not justify the timing of the Ordinance by contending that the earlier statutory regime was constitutionally deficient. He pointed out that municipal elections had previously been conducted under that regime and that the State itself had continued to act upon it until immediately before the Ordinance. According to him, if the earlier provisions were constitutionally valid, there was no constitutional necessity to abandon an advanced electoral exercise merely because the Legislature subsequently considered another method preferable. If, on the other hand, the State's case was that the earlier regime was constitutionally impermissible, it would have to explain how elections had continuously been conducted under that very regime and why the supposed defect had remained unattended until the present elections became due.

Learned Counsel clarified, however, that his submission was not that the Legislature was prohibited from replacing voters with population or from increasing the numerical benchmark from 2,500 to 3,000. He accepted that legislative policy may change and that a court cannot invalidate an amendment merely because the earlier law was also workable. His submission remained confined to the application of the newly introduced regime to elections in respect of which the constitutional obligation under Article 243U had already arisen and, in several cases, had already been breached.

Mr. Gosavi thereafter addressed the Respondents' reliance upon the presumption of constitutionality attaching to legislation. He accepted the existence of that presumption but submitted that it could not answer a demonstrated conflict between the operation of an ordinary law and an express constitutional mandate. According to him, once the direct consequence of applying the Ordinance to the ensuing elections was shown to be postponement beyond Article 243U, the Court was required to examine the constitutional effect of the measure rather than terminate the enquiry merely upon the presumption ordinarily attaching to legislation.

Learned Counsel accordingly urged that the consequence or direct impact of the impugned measure was a legitimate consideration in constitutional adjudication. His submission was that constitutional review cannot be confined to the form in which legislative power has been exercised where the necessary effect of the measure is to impair a constitutional limitation. He invoked the supremacy of the Constitution as the controlling principle and contended that no organ of the State could employ a power conferred by the Constitution itself in a manner which rendered another binding constitutional command ineffective.

On the question of relief, Mr. Gosavi submitted that the Court was not powerless merely because the Ordinance had come into force. According to him, the primary constitutional obligation was to restore elected municipal government at the earliest possible point of time. He therefore urged that the ensuing elections should not be permitted to remain suspended merely for completion of an exercise introduced after the constitutional deadlines had arisen and that appropriate directions ought to be issued to the State Election Commission to proceed with the elections within a strict and definite period.

Mr. Gosavi nevertheless accepted during the course of the discussion that, so long as the Ordinance remained constitutionally valid and operative, the Court would have to confront the question whether it could direct the State Election Commission simply to disregard the amended statutory provisions. It was in answer to this difficulty that he maintained his challenge to the Ordinance itself and, in the alternative, its application to the present round of elections. According to him, the constitutional difficulty could not be resolved by simultaneously upholding the law and directing a constitutional authority to act contrary to it; the Court would therefore have to determine the challenge before fashioning the ultimate relief.

The submission of Mr. Gosavi, in substance, was therefore that the case presented two related but distinct constitutional questions. The first concerned the validity of the exercise of Ordinance-making power at the stage at which it was exercised. The second concerned the constitutional consequence of applying the amended statutory regime to elections which Article 243U required to have already been completed. He submitted that, whichever route was adopted, the ultimate constitutional objective had to remain restoration of democratically elected Municipal Councils without permitting any further avoidable postponement.

135A. In support of the submissions already noticed above, Mr. Gosavi also relied upon Naresh Krishna Gaunekar and others v. State of Goa and others (supra). He referred to the decision in the context of the statutory and constitutional requirements governing reservation in elections to local bodies in the State of Goa and submitted that the exercise of reservation and the electoral process have necessarily to conform to the constitutional scheme. His reliance upon the decision was also intended to demonstrate that questions concerning reservation in local bodies in Goa have previously been subjected to judicial scrutiny by examining the statutory exercise against the constitutional requirements governing representative local government.

135B. Mr. Gosavi then relied upon Dnyaneshwar Narso Naik v. State of Goa (supra), in support of his submission concerning the constitutional obligation to constitute elected local bodies within the period prescribed by the Constitution. According to him, the constitutional provisions relating to the duration of local bodies and the holding of elections are not directory provisions whose observance can depend upon administrative convenience. He submitted that the State and the State Election Commission are required to organise their respective statutory exercises in such a manner that the constitutional timetable is observed and that an exercise which could and ought to have been undertaken earlier cannot ordinarily furnish a justification for postponing an election after it has become due.

135C. Reliance was also placed upon Beant Kumar v. State of Punjab and others (supra) decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 14 October 2024. Mr. Gosavi submitted that the very issue which arose before the Court in that case was whether elections to Municipalities, Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and other local bodies could be delayed because a delimitation exercise remained pending. He relied upon the decision to reinforce his submission that delimitation is an exercise which the authorities are required to anticipate and complete in time and that a pending delimitation exercise cannot ordinarily be converted into a ground for defeating the constitutional command requiring timely elections.

135D. Mr. Gosavi further relied upon Chhaya D/o Jasvantsing Hajari v. Committee for Scrutiny¹⁶ in the course of his challenge to the manner in which the impugned legislative measure operates upon an electoral process which, according to the Petitioners, had already substantially progressed under the pre-existing statutory regime. He submitted that the Court, while examining the constitutional validity and operation of legislation, is entitled to consider its real effect and consequence and cannot confine the inquiry merely to the form in which the legislative measure has been enacted.

135E. In continuation of the same submission, Mr. Gosavi placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench decision in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu¹⁷. He submitted that the supremacy of the Constitution constitutes an essential feature of its basic structure and that the constitutional validity of a legislative measure has ultimately to be tested by examining its direct impact upon the constitutional principle which is said to have been infringed. According to him, the form of the legislative measure is therefore not decisive and its consequences are relevant where those consequences directly impair a constitutional mandate.

135F. Applying these principles to the present case, Mr. Gosavi submitted that the challenge to the Ordinance cannot be answered merely by saying that the State Legislature possesses legislative competence over Municipalities or that the Ordinance has been promulgated in exercise of the constitutional power under Article 213. His submission was that the Court must examine what the Ordinance actually does in the circumstances in which it was promulgated. According to him, if its immediate consequence is to render ineffective an electoral exercise which had substantially progressed, require that exercise to commence afresh and thereby carry the elections beyond the period mandated by Article 243U, that consequence forms an integral part of the constitutional scrutiny of the impugned measure.

135G. These authorities were relied upon by Mr. Gosavi together with Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar¹⁸, Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), and Sri M. Shivaraju v. State of Karnataka¹⁹, which we have already noticed while recording his principal submissions. His cumulative submission was that the power to promulgate an Ordinance is undoubtedly a constitutional legislative power, but its exercise remains subject to judicial review on recognised constitutional grounds and cannot be used in a manner which has the effect of defeating another express and binding constitutional command.

Mr. Gaurish Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1572 of 2026, while adopting the submissions advanced on the mandatory character of Article 243U, principally directed his challenge to the consequences which followed after promulgation of the Ordinance. He submitted that his petition stood on an additional factual footing because the State Election Commission had, before the Ordinance came into force, actually undertaken the exercise contemplated by the law then prevailing and had thereafter, on 21 May 2026, declared that entire delimitation exercise null and void. According to him, the constitutional validity of this subsequent action of the State Election Commission had to be examined independently of the wider challenge to the Ordinance.

Mr. Agni took us through the steps undertaken before 22 April 2026 and submitted that this was not a case where the authorities had merely expressed an intention to hold elections. The State Election Commission had appointed the requisite officers, adopted the relevant electoral rolls, fixed the number of Councillors, prepared the draft delimitation and invited objections from the public. The petitioner himself had participated in the process by submitting objections on 4 April 2026. According to learned Counsel, when the statutory exercise had reached such an advanced stage, the subsequent decision to abandon it altogether had a direct bearing upon the constitutional obligation to complete the elections within time.

Learned Counsel submitted that the significance of the earlier exercise did not depend upon whether every preparatory step constituted a part of the "election" in the technical sense in which that expression has been understood for the purpose of the constitutional bar against judicial interference after commencement of an election. His contention was narrower. According to him, the earlier steps demonstrated that the machinery necessary for holding the elections had already been activated and substantial statutory work had already been completed. The State could therefore not treat the position existing on 22 April 2026 as though the entire electoral exercise had yet to commence.

Mr. Agni placed emphasis upon the decision of this Court in Dnyaneshwar Narso Naik v. State of Goa (supra) and submitted that the purpose of requiring delimitation and reservation to be completed sufficiently before notification of an election was itself to advance the constitutional value of a free and fair election. According to him, adequate opportunity for objections to delimitation and reservation enables grievances to be considered and, if necessary, judicially examined before the election reaches a stage where interference becomes constitutionally restricted. The petition specifically proceeds on this foundation and treats a fair delimitation exercise and sufficient opportunity for objections as integral to the conduct of a free and fair election.

He therefore submitted that there was no dispute on behalf of the petitioner about the desirability of a fair delimitation exercise or about the necessity of making reservations in accordance with constitutional requirements. The difficulty, according to him, was that these very objectives had been invoked to abandon an exercise which had already substantially progressed and to substitute an entirely fresh exercise at a stage when the constitutional period for holding the elections had either expired or was about to expire. In his submission, a measure intended to improve the fairness of an election could not be implemented in a manner which indefinitely displaced the election itself.

Mr. Agni then addressed the change brought about in Section 9 by substituting "population" for "voters". He submitted that this amendment had to be understood with some precision. The earlier Section 9 employed the number of voters for determining the number of elected Councillors, whereas reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was already linked to their proportion in the population of the municipal area. The amendment therefore altered the statutory basis for determining the strength of the Council, but did not for the first time introduce population as a concept into the municipal statutory scheme.

Learned Counsel submitted that this distinction assumed importance in answering the State's contention that the entire pre-Ordinance electoral exercise had become constitutionally unusable once population replaced voters. According to him, the mere fact that the Legislature thereafter considered population to be the preferable basis for fixing the number of Councillors did not retrospectively render every action validly undertaken under the earlier law unconstitutional. He submitted that the State would have to distinguish between the validity of the legislative policy underlying the amendment and the necessity of applying that policy by restarting the present elections.

Mr. Agni further submitted that the statutory framework itself continued to use electoral rolls for identifying the persons entitled to vote even after the amendment. Population and voters therefore performed different functions within the electoral scheme. According to him, the State's reliance upon the population-voter distinction could justify a change in legislative policy, but did not by itself answer why an already advanced delimitation exercise had to be nullified when the constitutional date for completing the elections had already arrived.

Learned Counsel also questioned the decision dated 21 May 2026 on the ground that the State Election Commission had treated the Ordinance as automatically extinguishing everything done under the earlier law. His submission was that the Ordinance did not expressly declare every earlier step null and void nor did it contain a specific provision invalidating all action already undertaken. According to him, before abandoning an exercise which had progressed through publication of draft wards and receipt of objections, the Commission was required to consider what part of the earlier exercise remained capable of being preserved or adapted consistently with the amended law.