SC grants major relief to Himachal govt; MLAs allowed to vote in Mayor, Deputy Mayor and local body election
Shimla, June 15
In a significant relief to the Himachal Pradesh government, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed an interim order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had barred Members of the Legislative Assembly from voting in elections for mayors, deputy mayors, chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of urban local bodies.
With the apex court's intervention, MLAs will now be permitted to participate and vote in the elections of office-bearers in Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats across the state.
Himachal Pradesh Advocate General Anup Kumar Rattan said the Supreme Court's order was not merely a relief for the government but also a reaffirmation of the correct interpretation of the law. He stated that Section 10(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 grants MLAs voting rights as ex officio members of municipal bodies and that the legislature had consciously not restricted this right to any particular category of meetings.
"The Supreme Court has clearly held that until Section 10(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act is struck down or declared invalid, MLAs retain their statutory voting rights. The stay on the High Court's interim order has now removed the uncertainty surrounding local body elections and clarified the legal position, said "Advocate General Anup Kumar Rattan, while speaking with ANI.
According to Rattan, the Supreme Court observed that an interim order cannot effectively decide the main petition and noted that MLAs are elected representatives of the people whose voting rights under the statute extend to elections for mayors, deputy mayors, chairpersons and vice-chairpersons.
The apex court stayed the High Court's June 4 order, which had restricted voting in such elections to elected ward councillors alone. The state government had challenged the interim order, arguing that it had created uncertainty and complications in the ongoing election process for urban local bodies.
Rattan said the Supreme Court noted that as long as Section 10(3) remains on the statute book and has not been declared invalid by any court, the voting rights of MLAs must continue. He further said the court orally observed that MLAs, elected from larger constituencies, are also elected representatives and cannot be excluded from the democratic process prescribed under the law.
Following the stay order, MLAs will be eligible to vote in upcoming elections for mayors, deputy mayors, chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats in Himachal Pradesh.
Rattan added that in cases where elections have already been conducted and results declared, any challenge to the outcome would have to be pursued through an election petition in accordance with the law.
— ANI
Reader Comments
Good that the Supreme Court stepped in. But honestly, this whole mess shows how our legal system can be misused to delay or disrupt democratic processes. The High Court's interim order was based on some technicality? Let MLAs do their job and vote—they represent the will of the people after all.
Interesting case! As an outsider looking in, I find it fascinating how India’s legal system handles these overlaps between state and local governance. The Supreme Court’s reasoning—that interim orders shouldn’t decide main petitions—is sound logic anywhere in the world. Hope this brings some stability to Himachal’s local elections.
This is a win for democracy. But I do have a small concern—if MLAs are already powerful in the state assembly, shouldn't local body elections be more independent, with only ward councillors deciding who leads them? That said, if the law allows it, the SC was right to not overturn it through an interim order. Let the main case be heard properly.
Practical ruling from the apex court. Blocking MLAs from voting just creates confusion and delays elections. Whether you agree with Section 10(3) or not, it's the law until properly challenged. The High Court jumped the gun with that interim order. Glad the SC set things straight for now.
Honestly, I'm a bit conflicted. On one hand, MLAs are elected reps and they should vote. On the other hand, local bodies are meant to decentralize power—if MLAs dominate, what's the point of having separate municipal elections? But the SC's legal reasoning is solid: you can't use an interim order to change the law. Let's wait
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.