Summary
A Division Bench of the High Court, on an intra-court appeal, had stayed the dismissal of a writ petition and directed that a candidate whose nomination for Zila Panchayat Member had been rejected be allotted a symbol and allowed to contest. The Supreme Court set that interim order aside. Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution and the remedy of an election petition under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 bar interference under Article 226 during the election process, and the appellant had already been declared elected unopposed without being heard.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could entertain a challenge under Article 226 to the rejection of a nomination for a Panchayat election, in view of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution and the remedy of an election petition under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.
- Whether the Division Bench was justified in granting interim relief directing the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to the writ petitioner after the appellant had been declared elected unopposed and without hearing him.
Provisions considered
- Article 243-O(b), Constitution of IndiaThe Court read the non-obstante clause as barring challenge to any Panchayat election except by an election petition under State law. Where the State Legislature has enacted such a law, the clause channels judicial review into that remedy and does not abrogate it. Because the 2016 Act exists, the bar applied. (¶¶ 8.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10, 12)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that where an efficacious election petition remedy exists, the High Court must exercise great restraint and is precluded from using its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the electoral process. (¶¶ 9.3, 10.5, 11, 12)
- Section 131H, Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016Section 131H(1)(b)(i) allows an election to be questioned where the result was materially affected by the improper rejection of a nomination, by application to the prescribed authority, with a revision to the District Judge under sub-section (6). The Court held that the writ petitioner had to use this remedy and could not bypass it. (¶¶ 8.1, 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4)
- Section 90, Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016The writ petitioner's grievance was that his nomination was rejected on a ground (non-disclosure of a prior acquittal) not among the Section 90 disqualifications. The Court held that an alleged breach of the Act must be pursued through the remedy the Act itself provides. (¶¶ 8.2, 10.2, 10.3)
Held
- Article 243-O(b) bars courts from entertaining challenges to Panchayat elections except through an election petition under the State law. Once the State Legislature has enacted such a law, the High Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 over grievances arising during the course of the election. The bar does not abrogate judicial review but routes it through the statutory remedy. (¶¶ 9.4, 10, 12)
- Improper rejection of a nomination is a ground under Section 131H(1)(b)(i) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. A candidate who complains that the Election Officer breached the Act must use the remedy under that Act, before the prescribed authority and then in revision, and cannot bypass it. Relying on Laxmibai v. Collector and N.P. Ponnuswami, the Court held that rejection of a nomination can be challenged only by an election petition after the election. (¶¶ 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 12)
- The Division Bench erred on three counts: it acted against the bar in Article 243-O; it directed a symbol to be allotted after the appellant had already been declared elected unopposed; and it stayed the Single Judge's order without hearing the appellant, who was directly affected and had not been impleaded in the intra-court appeal. (¶¶ 3.4, 11)
- The right to contest or question an election is statutory and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the governing statute. High Courts should avoid granting liberal interim relief on individual grievances and should keep in mind the public interest in the smooth conduct of elections. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; interim order of the Division Bench dated 18 July 2025 in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 set aside and the special appeal dismissed.