The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Maharashtra government and the Maharashtra State Election Commission on a petition seeking immediate elections to local bodies in the State, alleging that polls have not been conducted even 506 days after the expiry of the elected bodies' tenure.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan sought responses on the plea filed by Sangram Govindrao Patil, a former elected member of the Kusumbe Gat, Zilla Parishad, Dhule.

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition contends that elections to Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis have remained pending despite the tenure of the elected bodies ending on January 16, 2025. It argues that the delay violates the constitutional mandate of regular democratic governance under Part IX of the Constitution.

The petitioner has sought directions to Conduct elections to the concerned Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis without further delay; Treat seats reserved beyond the constitutionally permissible 50% reservation ceiling as open category seats; Declare that elections under Part IX of the Constitution cannot be postponed due to unconstitutional reservation structures; and to Frame guidelines to ensure timely conduct of local body elections while complying with constitutional reservation limits.

According to the plea, the delay stems from reservation arrangements allegedly exceeding the 50% ceiling laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra.

The petition points to a reservation notification issued by the Dhule Zilla Parishad administration on October 3, 2025, which reserved 41 of 56 seats, and claims that some Panchayat Samitis had reserved as many as 85.71% of their seats.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Gawali case, the petitioner argues that reservation disputes cannot be used as a reason to indefinitely postpone elections. It submits that any reservation exceeding the 50% limit should be treated as open category seats so that the electoral process can proceed without delay.

The plea further states that it does not seek a fresh declaration of law but merely the implementation of legal principles already settled by the Supreme Court.

Background

In Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (2021), the Supreme Court struck down the 27% OBC reservation under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, holding that it breached the constitutional 50% reservation cap.

In 2022, the Court directed that OBC reservations should remain in status quo in local body elections already notified for 367 local bodies, effectively suspending their implementation for those elections.

Subsequently, in May 2025, the Court ordered the Maharashtra State Election Commission to notify local body elections within four weeks and directed that they be conducted based on the OBC reservation framework that existed before the Banthia Commission report submitted in July 2022. The Court had also asked that the election process be completed within four months, while permitting the Election Commission to seek additional time if required.

Later, in November 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that its earlier order had been misunderstood by State authorities after receiving applications alleging that reservations in several local bodies exceeded the 50% ceiling. The Court reiterated that the total reservation cannot cross the constitutional limit and directed the authorities not to implement excess reservations. It also sought details of local bodies where the threshold had been breached.

Following those directions, elections were held in certain local bodies across Maharashtra.

Case: Sangram Govindrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 806/2026.