Chennai: A lawyer has moved the Madras high court, challenging the Tamil Nadu govt’s decision to extend the tenure of special officers appointed to administer rural local bodies in nine districts. He alleged that the move violates the constitutional requirement to conduct local body elections within the prescribed five-year term.The plea moved by advocate R Baskaran is likely to be taken up for hearing in the first week of Nov. The petitioner also urged the court to direct the authorities to complete ward delimitation and reservation procedures within a stipulated timeframe and conduct elections to rural local bodies across 37 districts in the state.According to the petitioner, the elected representatives of village panchayats, panchayat unions, and district panchayats in 28 districts completed their five-year tenure on Jan 5, 2025. The govt then appointed officials from the rural development and panchayat raj department as special officers to administer these local bodies. Their tenure was extended every six months.The govt has now extended the tenure of special officers in these 28 districts until April 19, 2027. Similarly, the tenure of elected representatives in nine other districts — Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu, Villupuram, Kallakurichi, Vellore, Ranipet, Tirupattur, Tirunelveli and Tenkasi — ended on Oct 19. The govt appointed special officers to administer these rural local bodies for another six months, until April 19, 2027, he said.“The govt had cited the merger of 46 rural local bodies with urban local bodies, the creation of nine new panchayat unions and 93 new village panchayats, and the need for ward delimitation and reservation in 23 districts as reasons for its inability to conduct elections,” he added.However, the govt order did not specify any reasons necessitating the promulgation of an ordinance. He also alleged that the state election commission was not consulted before appointing special officers to administer the rural local bodies, he said.Citing Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner argued that ward delimitation could not be cited as a reason for postponing local body elections.
