Synopsis
The Rajasthan government has requested more time from the High Court to address the postponement of elections in 6,759 Gram Panchayats, citing the appointment of administrators and potential violations of legal provisions.Key Takeaways
- Rajasthan government seeks more time from High Court.
- Postponement affects 6,759 Gram Panchayats.
- Concerns raised about legality of administrator appointments.
- Petition argues violation of constitutional provisions.
- Delay disrupts democratic structure in rural governance.
Jaipur, Feb 4 (NationPress) On Tuesday, the Rajasthan government requested the High Court for more time to provide its input regarding the delay of elections for 6,759 Gram Panchayats.
The court permitted an extension of two weeks while demanding a definitive schedule for the elections. During the proceedings, the state administration revealed that it had assigned administrators under Section 95 of the Panchayati Raj Act. However, the Act lacks clarity on who qualifies as an administrator.
Meanwhile, the petitioner's attorney, Premchand Devanda, contended that private individuals should not be appointed as administrators, asserting that once a Sarpanch’s term concludes, they are no longer acting as elected officials.
Legal stipulations indicate that only a government officer may serve as an administrator, and even then, only for a maximum of six months.
Moreover, the government’s notification did not clarify the length of the administrator appointments or the timeline for the elections.
Instead of proceeding with elections in January 2025, the Rajasthan government designated outgoing Sarpanches as administrators for the 6,759 Gram Panchayats. Additionally, an administrative committee was established at each Panchayat level, which included the deputy Sarpanch and ward members.
The Panchayati Raj Department issued a notification on January 16 to enforce this structure. This approach mirrors the model used in Madhya Pradesh, where similar appointments occurred in BJP-led states. This strategy appears to be part of a broader initiative to facilitate simultaneous elections for all Panchayati Raj bodies in Rajasthan.
Key points from the petitioner's lawyer highlighted breaches of constitutional and legal standards. He claimed that the government’s January 16 notification, which delayed the elections, contravenes articles 243E and 243K of the Constitution and Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
He further described the situation as a destabilization of rural governance, arguing that the delay of elections in 6,759 Panchayats disrupts the democratic framework of rural institutions.
According to constitutional guidelines, Panchayat elections cannot be postponed beyond their five-year term. Concerns regarding the inappropriate appointment of administrators were also raised.
"Once a Sarpanch’s term concludes, they transition from public representatives to private individuals. Legal guidelines dictate that a private individual cannot be appointed as an administrator within Panchayats," stated the petitioner’s attorney.
