Delimitation Dispute: Calcutta High Court Stays KMC Elections

The Calcutta High Court on Friday, 6 October 2026, restrained the West Bengal State Election Commission from issuing any notification for the upcoming Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) elections. The court has ordered that the election process cannot be undertaken based on the newly determined wards until a final decision is reached on the petition challenging the delimitation process.

The entire dispute began with a law passed by the West Bengal government in the State Assembly on 12 August. Under this law, the wards of the KMC were reconstituted, and the total number of wards was increased from 144 to 209. Dipu Das, a former councillor of the city's municipal corporation, challenged this delimitation process in the Calcutta High Court.

A division bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Arjun Roy Mukherjee granted the application MAT No. 1917 of 2026. The court has modified an earlier order given by Justice Hiranmoy Bhattacharya on 29 October 2026, in which he had refused to stay the state government's delimitation notification. The High Court has now clarified that no notification for elections shall be issued based on notification number 1728/UDMA-15011(22)/57/2026-LS-MA SEC published in the gazette on 11 September 2026 and the amended Schedule II of the KMC Act, until WPA No. 31433 of 2026 is disposed of.

This legal hurdle has created uncertainty regarding the conduct of KMC elections. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government was very keen to hold these elections, and the BJP leadership had already begun the process of selecting candidates. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari had stated on several occasions that he wants to hold municipal 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 all councillors resigned. Subsequently, the state government appointed administrators to manage this, West Bengal's largest local self-government institution.

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioner, raised a question in court as to whether administrators appointed by the state government can function as the 'Corporation' and recommend the reconstitution of the board. He alleged that the state government and its agencies have engaged in 'gerrymandering' (manipulation of electoral boundaries) to provide a biased advantage to the ruling party based on past election results. He argued that this process was carried out at a great expense to the public exchequer, ignoring critical issues such as geographical continuity, organization, and administrative convenience.

On the other hand, Advocate General S.N. Mitra argued that under Section 601 of the KMC Act, the state government has full power to add, change, or amend the schedules of the KMC Act. He stated that this power is available whether or not there is a recommendation from the Corporation, making the petitioner's arguments irrelevant.

Nevertheless, the court held that the case presented by the writ petitioner is strong prima facie. The court decided to grant the stay, noting that the writ petition could become infructuous if interim protection is not provided. According to a report by The Hindu, the entire process now depends on the decision regarding the pending petition.