{"id":1749,"date":"2025-12-04T14:36:59","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T09:06:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/?p=1749"},"modified":"2025-12-04T14:44:14","modified_gmt":"2025-12-04T09:14:14","slug":"bombay-high-court-slams-sec-for-last-minute-postponement-of-local-body-polls-orders-unified-results-on-december-21","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/bombay-high-court-slams-sec-for-last-minute-postponement-of-local-body-polls-orders-unified-results-on-december-21\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay High Court Slams SEC For \u2018Last-Minute\u2019 Postponement of Local Body Polls; Orders Unified Results on December 21"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Bombay High Court Slams SEC For \u2018Last-Minute\u2019 Postponement of Local Body Polls; Orders Unified Results on December 21<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Bombay\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Undercover Editor News Agency | Updated: December 04, 2025<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

In a strong and unprecedented rebuke, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on Tuesday criticised the State Election Commission (SEC) for its \u201clast-minute and avoidable\u201d decision to postpone elections in several Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads across Maharashtra.<\/p>\n\n

While the Court refrained from cancelling the revised schedule to avoid destabilising the democratic process, it passed a crucial order to safeguard the fairness of elections\u2014directing that no results be declared until all polling, including postponed constituencies, is completed.<\/p>\n\n

As per the Court\u2019s directions, all results\u2014original and postponed\u2014must be announced together on or after December 21, 2025.<\/p>\n\n

HC Questions SEC\u2019s Administrative Foresight<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar noted that the SEC\u2019s decision\u2014taken barely 72 hours before the voting date\u2014reflected \u201ca lack of administrative foresight\u201d and was not backed by adequate justification.<\/p>\n\n

The SEC had postponed polling in nearly 20 local bodies, claiming that appeals related to rejected nomination forms had not been decided in time. It further planned to declare results in two phases\u2014December 3 and December 21.<\/p>\n\n

Petitioners challenged this, terming the postponement \u201carbitrary and disruptive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

The Court agreed, holding that the appellate process is predictable and should have been considered well in advance.<\/p>\n\n

Unified Results To Prevent \u2018Bandwagon Effect\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The High Court found that declaring partial results while polling remained pending in other constituencies could unfairly influence voters, potentially altering the outcome.<\/p>\n\n

The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n

\u201cEarly declaration of results may produce a bandwagon effect and influence voters in postponed elections, undermining free and fair polls.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

To prevent this, the Court ordered:<\/p>\n\n

    \n
  • Voting for local bodies already scheduled may continue.<\/li>\n\n
  • Counting and result declaration must be halted<\/strong> until polls in postponed areas are completed on December 20, 2025.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n
  • The SEC must declare all results together on or after December 21, 2025.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n
  • No exit polls<\/strong> may be broadcast until voting ends on December 20.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n

    Court Questions SEC\u2019s Inconsistent Approach<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    The Bench also criticised the SEC for allowing polls in some divisions of the same ward while postponing others\u2014calling it illogical and inconsistent.<\/p>\n\n

    The Court stated that fairness demands that either the entire ward votes together or the entire ward is postponed.<\/p>\n\n

    EC\u2019s Constitutional Powers Are Not \u2018Unbridled\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    While acknowledging the SEC\u2019s authority under Articles 243K and 243ZA<\/strong> of the Constitution, the Court stressed that these powers must be exercised with:<\/p>\n\n

      \n
    • Transparency<\/strong><\/li>\n\n
    • Predictability<\/strong><\/li>\n\n
    • Administrative prudence<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n

      SEC Directed To Issue New Guidelines Within 10 Weeks<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

      Before disposing of the petitions, the High Court ordered the SEC to create clear guidelines within 10 weeks to prevent such last-minute disruptions in future election schedules.<\/p>\n\n

      Case Title:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

      Vinod Pundlikrao Chinchalkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Bombay High Court Slams SEC For \u2018Last-Minute\u2019 Postponement of Local Body Polls; Orders Unified Results on December 21 Undercover Editor News Agency | Updated: December 04, 2025 In a strong and unprecedented rebuke, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on Tuesday criticised the State Election Commission (SEC) for its \u201clast-minute and avoidable\u201d decision to postpone elections in several Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads across Maharashtra. While the Court refrained from cancelling the revised schedule to avoid destabilising the democratic process, it passed a crucial order to safeguard the fairness of elections\u2014directing that no results be declared until all polling, including postponed constituencies, is completed. As per the Court\u2019s directions, all results\u2014original and postponed\u2014must be announced together on or after December 21, 2025. HC Questions SEC\u2019s Administrative Foresight A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar noted that the SEC\u2019s decision\u2014taken barely 72 hours before the voting date\u2014reflected \u201ca lack of administrative foresight\u201d and was not backed by adequate justification. The SEC had postponed polling in nearly 20 local bodies, claiming that appeals related to rejected nomination forms had not been decided in time. It further planned to declare results in two phases\u2014December 3 and December 21. Petitioners challenged this, terming the postponement \u201carbitrary and disruptive.\u201d The Court agreed, holding that the appellate process is predictable and should have been considered well in advance. Unified Results To Prevent \u2018Bandwagon Effect\u2019 The High Court found that declaring partial results while polling remained pending in other constituencies could unfairly influence voters, potentially altering the outcome. The Court observed: \u201cEarly declaration of results may produce a bandwagon effect and influence voters in postponed elections, undermining free and fair polls.\u201d To prevent this, the Court ordered: Court Questions SEC\u2019s Inconsistent Approach The Bench also criticised the SEC for allowing polls in some divisions of the same ward while postponing others\u2014calling it illogical and inconsistent. The Court stated that fairness demands that either the entire ward votes together or the entire ward is postponed. EC\u2019s Constitutional Powers Are Not \u2018Unbridled\u2019 While acknowledging the SEC\u2019s authority under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution, the Court stressed that these powers must be exercised with: SEC Directed To Issue New Guidelines Within 10 Weeks Before disposing of the petitions, the High Court ordered the SEC to create clear guidelines within 10 weeks to prevent such last-minute disruptions in future election schedules. Case Title: Vinod Pundlikrao Chinchalkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1751,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[152,279],"tags":[284,280,283,282,281,85],"class_list":["post-1749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-civic-political-news","category-election","tag-2025-local-body-election","tag-bombay-high-court","tag-election-law","tag-local-body-election","tag-sec","tag-undercovereditor-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1749","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1749"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1749\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1754,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1749\/revisions\/1754"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1751"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/undercovereditor.com\/hi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}