The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that challenges to the rejection of nominations in Panchayat elections cannot be entertained through writ petitions, reinforcing that the exclusive remedy lies in statutorily prescribed election petitions. This judgment clarifies the constitutional boundaries of judicial intervention in local electoral processes and restores the primacy of legislative frameworks over ad hoc judicial interference.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose when respondent No. 1, Narendra Singh Deopa, submitted his nomination for election as Zila Panchayat Member from Constituency No. 11, Pithoragarh. The Returning Officer cancelled his candidature on grounds of alleged non-disclosure of an acquittal in a prior criminal case. The appellant, Sandeep Singh Bora, was subsequently declared elected unopposed after the other two candidates, including the respondent, were disqualified.
Procedural History
- 9 July 2025: Returning Officer cancelled respondent’s nomination.
- 11 July 2025: Respondent filed a writ petition (MS No. 2083 of 2025) before the Uttarakhand High Court.
- 11 July 2025: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the matter was barred under Article 243-O and subject to statutory remedy under Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.
- 18 July 2025: Division Bench of the High Court, in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025, stayed the Single Judge’s order and directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 and permit his participation in the election.
- 23 July 2025: Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s interim order and permitted the election to proceed subject to final outcome.
- 12 January 2026: Supreme Court heard the appeal; respondents failed to appear or were unserved.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought the setting aside of the High Court’s interim order, arguing that the Division Bench had violated Article 243-O by entertaining a writ petition in a matter exclusively governed by statutory election petition procedures.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge the rejection of a nomination for a Panchayat election, when a specific statutory remedy under Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 is available.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that Article 243-O of the Constitution, with its non-obstante clause, creates an absolute bar on judicial interference in Panchayat electoral matters except through election petitions. He relied on Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh and N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, arguing that the High Court’s intervention during the pendency of the election process undermined the statutory scheme and disrupted electoral finality. He emphasized that the rejection of nomination is a matter explicitly covered under Section 131H(1)(b)(i), which permits challenges to improper rejection of nominations via election petition.
For the Respondent
The respondent, through his counsel at the High Court, argued that the rejection of his nomination was illegal because it was based on a ground not enumerated under Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act, which lists disqualifications for membership. He contended that since the rejection was ultra vires the statute, it amounted to a violation of constitutional rights and thus warranted judicial review under Article 226. He further argued that no efficacious remedy existed under the Act to challenge such a procedural illegality before the election concluded.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of Article 243-O, its constitutional context, and its interaction with Article 226. It emphasized that the 73rd Amendment elevated Panchayati Raj institutions to constitutional status, and Article 243-O was deliberately crafted to insulate electoral processes from premature judicial intervention. The non-obstante clause - “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution” - was held to be a clear legislative directive to channel all disputes into the statutory framework.
"The existence of a law made by the State Legislature is a condition precedent for the operation of the embargo contemplated under Article 243-O. The provision does not abrogate the sacrosanct power of judicial review, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution; rather, it channels such review through a statutorily prescribed and efficacious mechanism, namely, an election petition."
The Court distinguished between challenges to the validity of an election (which are barred) and challenges to the process leading to it. It held that even challenges to the rejection of nominations fall squarely within the scope of Section 131H, which explicitly permits petitions on grounds of “improper acceptance or rejection of nomination.” The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the rejection was ultra vires Section 90, noting that Section 131H governs the entire electoral process, including nomination procedures, and provides a complete remedy.
The Court also underscored the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s interim order: it was passed without impleading the appellant, who had already been declared elected, and it disrupted a process that had reached finality. The Court cited Laxmibai v. Collector and N.P. Ponnuswami to affirm that even during the interregnum, no writ petition can be entertained to challenge nomination rejection.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court held that Article 243-O bars writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters relating to Panchayat elections, including challenges to nomination rejection, where a statutory remedy under Section 131H is available. The interim order of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Election Petition Is the Only Path
- Practitioners must file election petitions under Section 131H to challenge nomination rejections - writ petitions are not maintainable at any stage.
- Any attempt to bypass the statutory forum will be dismissed summarily, even if the ground of rejection appears arbitrary.
- The bar applies even if the rejection is based on a non-statutory ground, as long as the statutory mechanism exists.
Interim Relief in Electoral Matters Is Highly Restricted
- Courts must not grant interim relief that alters the electoral process mid-stream, especially after a candidate has been declared elected.
- The principle of finality of elections overrides individual claims of procedural irregularity unless the statutory remedy is demonstrably ineffective.
- Delay in filing election petitions will not be condoned merely because a writ petition was filed earlier.
Statutory Framework Trumps Judicial Discretion
- The existence of a comprehensive statutory scheme under the Panchayati Raj Act ousts the High Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Judicial restraint is not optional - it is constitutionally mandated under Article 243-O.
- Practitioners must advise clients to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching courts, and must not waste judicial time with non-maintainable writs.
