Supreme Court Directs Immediate Conduct Of Tripura Village Committee Elections, Says Poll Timeline Is Final
The Supreme Court directed that Tripura's long-delayed Village Committee elections be held in a single phase and ruled that no further extension would be granted
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that elections to the Village Committees in Tripura be conducted in a single phase and made it clear that no further extension of the election process would be permitted.
The Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order after considering an affidavit filed by the State Election Commission proposing two possible schedules for holding the polls.
At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that the Commission had placed before it "two ways of conducting elections."
When the matter was taken up later in the day, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Election Commission had suggested two schedules for conducting the elections.
Explaining the proposals, the Attorney General said one schedule had been prepared in line with the Court's earlier suggestion of staggered polling. However, he pointed to the practical difficulties posed by the State's geography and weather conditions. "One schedule is the schedule in terms of the Court's suggestion if there is a possibility of staggered polling. However, having regard to the heavy monsoon in Tripura, Your Lordships know the topography there…," the Attorney General submitted. He said the Commission had alternatively suggested that the entire election be held in a single phase instead of "working around the unscheduled terrain and topography."
The Attorney General further argued that a single-phase election would avoid the need for external armed forces and ensure seamless conduct of the polls. "We won't be needing external armed forces arrangement also. We conduct elections then seamlessly. Why should we experiment in conducting elections like this?" he submitted, urging the Court to adopt the second schedule proposed by the Commission.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Tripura, supported the proposal and submitted that it would be preferable to conduct the elections in one phase. "I am in complete agreement with the election commission. It would be better if it's completed on one phase. You will not have to spare more security forces," Mehta submitted.
Counsel for the petitioner, while agreeing that the elections should be conducted as expeditiously as possible, highlighted that the exercise had already suffered considerable delay. "Elections must take place as early as possible. We are all ad idem on that... In the month of March, Lordships had asked them to hold elections in May. Unfortunately, we have crossed that. We could not hold elections. Let the process start in August," the counsel submitted.
Recording the submissions, the Court noted in its order: "In terms of the order dated 27.07.2026, the Election Commission has submitted an affidavit wherein it has suggested that the elections may be conducted either in multiple phases or in a single phase."
The Bench further observed: "All parties before us are ad idem that the elections may be conducted in a single phase."
Noting that the petitioner and one of the respondents had sought conduct of elections in August due to the prolonged delay, the Court said the difference between the competing proposals was only a matter of one month. "As the parties are in substantial agreement and the difference between the proposed dates is merely one month, we direct that the elections to the Village Committees be conducted in terms of the election schedule proposed in paragraph 52 of the affidavit," the Court ordered.
The Bench also directed all authorities to take immediate steps to complete the electoral process in accordance with the proposed schedule. "Respondents and all authorities shall make earliest endeavors to abide by the schedule and to conclude the election process. No further extension shall be granted," the Court said.
Notably, last month, the Court had questioned the delay in conducting Village Committee elections in Tripura while hearing a plea filed by Pradyot Deb Burman alleging that the authorities had failed to hold the polls for several years. The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan had examined the status of election preparedness and security arrangements after the State Election Commission earlier informed the Court that the elections would be held by June 2026. It had noted that the State Election Commission had sought deployment of 136 companies of paramilitary forces from the Central Government to ensure peaceful conduct of elections. However, only 24 companies had reportedly been provided earlier for State Council elections.
The Bench had further recorded that the State Home Department had written to the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 11, 2026 seeking deployment of 134 companies of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). However, the Court had observed that the affidavit did not clarify whether the Centre had accepted the request. “It is not clear from the affidavit whether the request has been accepted by the Central Government,” the Court noted.
The Bench had also taken note of the Election Commission’s statement that steps had already been initiated to conduct the Village Committee elections “as early as June 28.” Observing that the Election Commission had already taken “strategic preliminary steps” toward holding the elections, the Court said the process could be completed once adequate security arrangements were made.
Case Title: Pradyot Dev Burman v. Union of India
Bench: Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi
Hearing Date: June 16, 2026