In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India stated that a writ court cannot address issues of conflict or lack of legislative competence unless specific claims are made in the plea. The court emphasised that unless a statutory provision is declared unconstitutional, it cannot be halted from being implemented. In this case, the plea filed in 2008 requested the enforcement of the rotation policy for general elections to Panchayats in Maharashtra in 2007, following the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996.

The initial petitioners were concerned that the State Election Commission would not implement the provisions of the Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 in the local body elections at the time. The plea vaguely mentioned that Sections 12(2) and Section 58(1b) of the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 were not in line with Parts IX and X of the Constitution of India.

The High Court acknowledged that the second proviso of Sections 12 (2) (b) and 58 (1-B) (b) of the ZPPS Act conflicted with the first proviso of Section 4 (g) of PESA. It also suggested that the State and Union Law Departments engage in a dialogue to resolve this discrepancy.

Additionally, the High Court directed that until the legislative bodies rectify the discrepancies, the provisions of the 1961 Act and the 1996 Rules, to the extent that they were in conflict with PESA, should be disregarded for practical application. As a result, it issued a Writ of Mandamus instructing the State to implement the provisions of PESA for Panchayat elections at all levels in the districts of Dhule and Nandurbar.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court could not have instructed against the implementation of statutory provisions without first establishing that they are not constitutionally valid.