Calcutta High Court restrains KMC polls until challenge on delimitation decided

The Calcutta High Court on Friday (October 6, 2026) restrained the West Bengal State Election Commission from issuing any notification for the upcoming Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) elections based on newly redrawn wards until a pending petition challenging the delimitation exercise is decided.

The West Bengal government had passed a legislation in the State Assembly on August 12, redrawing the wards of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and increasing the number of wards from 144 to 209. Dipu Das, a former councillor of the city’s civic body had challenged the delimitation exercise before the Calcutta High Court.

“Accordingly, MAT No.1917 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby modifying the impugned Order dated October 29, 2026 passed in WPA No.31433 of 2026 by restraining the respondent no. 6, that is, the West Bengal State Election Commission, from issuing any notification calling an election to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the basis of the amended Schedule II of the KMC Act as notified in the Official Gazette vide Notification No.1728/UDMA-15011(22)/57/2026-LS-MA SEC dated September 11, 2026 till disposal of WPA No.31433 of 2026,” an order by the Division Bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Arjun Ray Mukherjee.

The appeal by the petitioner challenged an October 29 order by Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, who had refused to stay the State government’s delimitation notification proposing amendments to Schedule II of the KMC Act.

The development casts uncertainty over holding of the elections to KMC, something that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government was keen on. In fact, the BJP leadership had started the process of selecting candidates. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has on several occasions, expressed their preference to hold civic body elections in Kolkata and Howrah by the end of November or early December this year.

After the BJP came to power in May 2026, the KMC board, led by former Mayor Firhad Hakim, and the councillors resigned, and the State government appointed administrators to run West Bengal’s largest civic body.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya questioned whether the administrator, appointed by the State Government upon dissolution of the corporation, could act as the “Corporation” and issue such a recommendation to reorganise the boards.

Mr. Bhattacharya said that the State Government and its agencies have resorted to gerrymandering in order to secure a partisan advantage for the ruling political party in West Bengal on the premise of previous electoral results, without considering relevant circumstances such as geographical contiguity, compactness and administrative convenience, involving huge expenses from the public exchequer.

 Advocate General S.N. Mitra argued that, under Section 601 of the KMC Act, the State Government itself has ample power to add, alter, or modify the Schedules of the KMC Act, irrespective of whether any recommendation is made by the Corporation or not and thus, the appellant’s contentions in that regard were irrelevant.

The Court, however, held the writ petitioner has made out a sufficiently strong prima facie case in the writ petition to be favoured with interim protection in order to save the writ petition from being rendered in-fructuous.