Court Deems Amendment Unconstitutional, Upholds Constitutional Mandate of Reservation Based on Population
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued an interim order staying the amendment introduced via Notification dated March 30, 2026, which conferred power upon the Deputy Commissioner to alter the reservation roster up to 5% based on geographical and other peculiar conditions. The court held that the amendment was unconstitutional and beyond the scope of Article 243D of the Constitution of India and the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Ranjan Sharma, came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Vikesh Zinta and others. The petitioners challenged the amendment on grounds that it violated the constitutional mandate, which requires reservations in Panchayati Raj institutions to be based strictly on the population ratio.
In a detailed judgment, the court underscored that the criteria for reservation, as stipulated under Article 243D and Section 125 of the Panchayati Raj Act, must adhere to the ratio of population. The amendment, which introduced geographical and other peculiar conditions as criteria, was deemed to have no basis in either the Constitution or the Panchayati Raj Act, and was thus declared unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court found procedural lapses in the legislative process, noting that the amendment was not preceded by prior publication or consultation with the State Election Commission as mandated by Section 186 of the Panchayati Raj Act. This procedural deficiency led to the amendment being declared ultra vires.
The court also addressed the issue of maintainability of the petition as a PIL, rejecting the objection raised by the Advocate General. The court held that the nature of the issue raised was of significant public interest, thereby justifying the PIL under Rule 10 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2021, read with Article 226 of the Constitution.
The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial restraint in matters involving the constitutionality of legislation, but emphasized that interim relief is justified when legislation is ex facie unconstitutional. The court found the balance of convenience and irreparable injury to public interest warranted the interim stay.
The Himachal Pradesh government has been directed to ensure issuance of the reservation roster in consonance with constitutional provisions by April 7, 2026. The court has instructed that any roster issued under the now-stayed notification should be revised accordingly.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional mandates and ensuring that legislative actions adhere strictly to statutory provisions.
Bottom Line:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed the amendment introduced via Notification dated 30.03.2026 that conferred power upon the Deputy Commissioner to alter the reservation roster up to 5% based on geographical and other peculiar conditions, holding it unconstitutional and beyond the scope of Article 243D of the Constitution and the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Statutory provision(s): Article 243D of the Constitution of India, Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Sections 124, 125, 183, 186
Vikesh Zinta v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879783
