Constitution of India — Article 243-O — Bar to Judicial Interference in Panchayat Elections — Scope
(Paras 8.1, 9 to 9.4, 12)
Article 243-O(b) imposes an express constitutional embargo that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in the manner provided by State law. Where the State Legislature has enacted a law providing a complete and efficacious mechanism for challenging election-related grievances, the High Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the electoral process.
Article 226 — Judicial Review in Electoral Matters — Self-Imposed Restraint — Non-Obstante Clause
(Paras 9.3, 12)
Though judicial review forms part of the basic structure, Article 243-O opens with a non-obstante clause and mandates that election disputes be channelled through the statutory mechanism. High Courts must exercise great circumspection and refrain from granting interim reliefs that disrupt an ongoing or concluded election process when an alternative statutory remedy exists.
Election Law — Rejection of Nomination — Remedy — Election Petition Only
(Paras 10 to 10.5)
Where the grievance relates to improper rejection of nomination, the sole remedy lies by way of an election petition under the governing statute. Such grievance cannot be agitated in writ proceedings during the currency of the election process. The statutory scheme must be strictly adhered to.
Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 — Section 131H — Improper Rejection of Nomination — Prescribed Authority — Exclusive Jurisdiction
(Paras 10 to 10.4)
Section 131H provides a complete code for challenging elections, including cases where the result is materially affected by improper acceptance or rejection of nomination. The election petition must be presented before the prescribed authority, namely the Assistant Collector (First Class) or Pargana Magistrate, with further revision before the District Judge. Recourse to writ jurisdiction is impermissible when such statutory remedy is available.
Electoral Process — Declaration of Candidate as Elected Unopposed — Judicial Interference — Impermissibility
(Paras 3.3, 11)
Once a candidate has been declared elected unopposed in accordance with the election process, the High Court cannot, in writ or intra-court appeal, direct reopening of the electoral process or permit participation of a disqualified candidate, particularly without impleading or hearing the elected candidate.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The appellant was declared elected unopposed as Zila Panchayat Member from Constituency No. 11 – Bharhgaon, District Pithoragarh, after the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of respondent No. 1 for non-disclosure.
Respondent No. 1 challenged the rejection of his nomination by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that, once the election process had commenced, the writ court ought not to interfere in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution and the availability of an election petition under Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.
In intra-court appeal, the Division Bench stayed the order of the Single Judge and directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 and permit him to contest the election. Notably, the present appellant, already declared elected unopposed, was not impleaded.
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional and statutory scheme governing Panchayat elections.
Article 243-O(b), inserted by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in the manner provided by State law. The State of Uttarakhand has enacted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which under Section 131H provides a comprehensive mechanism to challenge election results, including improper rejection of nomination.
The Court relied upon established election jurisprudence including:
-
Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh
-
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency
-
Laxmibai v. Collector
These authorities reiterate that election disputes must be raised only through the statutorily prescribed election petition after completion of the election process. Even High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions during the pendency of the election process to challenge rejection of nomination.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench committed three manifest errors:
First, it acted in disregard of the constitutional embargo under Article 243-O.
Second, it interfered with a process that had already culminated in the appellant being declared elected unopposed.
Third, it granted relief adverse to the appellant without impleading or hearing him, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The Court emphasised that the right to contest or question an election is purely statutory and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statute. Liberal interim reliefs that disrupt the election process undermine public interest and constitutional design.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where Article 243-O of the Constitution applies and the State Legislature has enacted a law providing for an election petition as the exclusive remedy to challenge election-related grievances, including improper rejection of nomination, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the electoral process. The constitutional embargo mandates that election disputes be addressed only through the statutory mechanism, and judicial intervention during or after the process, outside that framework, is impermissible.
RESULT
The Supreme Court set aside the interim order dated 18 July 2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025. The writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellant’s election as Zila Panchayat Member remained undisturbed. The civil appeal was allowed. Pending applications stood disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment