Elected municipal councilors cannot continue in office beyond the mandatory five-year term despite urban area upgradation.

The Appellants were elected Councillors of the City Municipal Council (CMC), Raichur, in elections held on 03.09.2018; their first meeting occurred on 02.11.2020.

In 2023-2024, an Administrator was appointed for 15 months to manage executive functions due to litigation over presidential reservation rosters, though the Councillors remained in office.

On 04.12.2024, the State upgraded the CMC to a "Municipal Corporation".

The State Election Commission (SEC) determined the Councillors' five-year tenure would expire on 01.11.2025, exactly five years from their first meeting.

The Appellants challenged this, arguing that under Section 503 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act, they should continue until fresh Corporation elections are held, and that the 15-month Administrator period should be excluded from their tenure.

A Single Judge dismissed their writ petition on 26.02.2026, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether, upon upgradation of a Smaller Urban Area to a Larger Urban Area, the CMC Councillors can continue to function as the Corporation until the first meeting of freshly elected representatives.

2. Whether Section 503(4) of the KMC Act constitutes an exception to the five-year term mandated by Article 243-U of the Constitution.

3. Whether the term of five years should exclude the 15-month period during which an Administrator managed executive posts.

Article 243-U of the Constitution of India mandates that every Municipality shall continue for five years from its first meeting and "no longer".

In Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, the Supreme Court held the five-year term is mandatory and admits no extension even for calamities.

Sections 8 and 503 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; Section 8 reflects the constitutional five-year limit while Section 503 governs transitions but contains a proviso allowing continuity only if elections were held within one year of the upgradation declaration.

G. Kuppuswamy v. State of Karnataka affirmed that Administrators may be appointed under "removal of difficulties" clauses (Section 509 KMC Act) once an elected body's term expires.

The Court held that Article 243-U is an "absolute constitutional brake".

The Court rejected the Appellants' reliance on Section 503(4) of the KMC Act, noting that the proviso for continuity only applies if the CMC elections were held within one year prior to the declaration; here, the elections were held over six years prior (2018 vs. 2024).

The Court clarified that internal presidential elections do not count as "elections to the smaller urban area".

The Court determined that the appointment of an Administrator for 15 months did not "interrupt" the tenure because the Councillors were never removed from office during that time.

Even if an interruption occurred, the Court reasoned that the Constitution provides no mechanism to "pause" or "exclude" time from the five-year clock.

The Court emphasized that a State statute (KMC Act) cannot override the constitutional mandate of Article 243-U via a "deeming fiction".

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, the Single Judge's order was confirmed, and the Karnataka State Election Commission was directed to complete fresh elections for the Raichur Municipal Corporation within three months.