The Allahabad High Court has clarified that an election petition under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat Rules, 1994 is maintainable to challenge the rejection of a nomination paper, affirming that the absence of specific grounds in the Rules does not limit the scope of judicial review in panchayat elections. The Court also emphasized that technical defects, such as non-attestation of photographs, cannot justify outright rejection without affording an opportunity to cure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the election for the office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, reserved for OBC (Women) candidates. The election process was scheduled with nomination filing on 08.07.2021, withdrawal allowed until 09.07.2021, and polling on 10.07.2021. The petitioner, Munni Devi, filed her nomination and was declared elected unopposed after the nominations of two other candidates, including Smt. Babli (sixth respondent), were rejected.
Key Facts
- The petitioner, Munni Devi, submitted her nomination form on 08.07.2021.
- Smt. Babli (sixth respondent) and Smt. Kavita also filed nomination papers on the same date.
- The nomination papers of Smt. Babli and Smt. Kavita were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground of non-compliance with Clause 6(a) of the State Election Commission’s circular dated 05.07.2021, which required self-attestation of photographs appended to the nomination form.
- The petitioner, Munni Devi, had also not self-attested the photograph on her nomination form.
- The petitioner filed an objection (Paper No. 25C/13) against Smt. Babli’s nomination, alleging dual registration in both Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh) and Haridwar (Uttarakhand).
- The Assistant Returning Officer, Saharanpur, wrote a letter dated 09.07.2021 (Paper No. 25-C/12) stating that Smt. Babli had been given an opportunity to rectify the defect but failed to do so.
- The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted written arguments dated 15.02.2022 (Paper No. 33-A) before the Election Tribunal, reiterating that Smt. Babli was offered a chance to self-attest but did not avail it.
- Smt. Babli filed Election Petition No. 217 of 2021 before the District Judge (Election Tribunal), Saharanpur, challenging the rejection of her nomination and seeking declaration of the petitioner’s election as void.
- The Election Tribunal, by order dated 20.09.2023, set aside the petitioner’s election, holding that the rejection of Smt. Babli’s nomination was illegal.
Procedural History
- 08.07.2021: Nomination filing date for Block Pramukh election.
- 09.07.2021: Nomination withdrawal deadline; rejection of Smt. Babli’s and Smt. Kavita’s nominations.
- 09.07.2021: Letter from Assistant Returning Officer, Saharanpur, to District Election Officer, stating Smt. Babli was given opportunity to rectify defect but did not.
- 10.07.2021: Election held; petitioner declared elected unopposed.
- 15.02.2022: Written arguments submitted by State before Election Tribunal (Paper No. 33-A).
- 17.08.2022: Statement of Smt. Babli recorded before Election Tribunal.
- 31.01.2023: Statement of petitioner recorded before Election Tribunal.
- 20.09.2023: Election Tribunal sets aside petitioner’s election, declaring it void.
- 27.10.2023: Allahabad High Court dismisses preliminary objection to maintainability of writ petition.
- 08.08.2025: Supreme Court, in SLP(C) Diary No. 41647 of 2025, condones delay and requests High Court to dispose of the writ petition within four months.
- 26.05.2026: Judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Election Tribunal’s order dated 20.09.2023, restoration of her election, and a declaration that the rejection of Smt. Babli’s nomination was lawful. Smt. Babli sought declaration that the petitioner’s election was void due to illegal rejection of her nomination.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an election petition under Rule 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 is maintainable to challenge the rejection of a nomination paper, and whether non-attestation of a photograph on the nomination form constitutes a fatal defect warranting rejection without opportunity to cure.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that Rule 35 of the 1994 Rules does not specify grounds for election petitions, but the grounds must be limited to those enumerated in the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, particularly Sections 13 and 27, which deal with disqualification and membership. They argued that rejection of nomination is not a ground for election petition under the Rules, citing Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal and Anju v. Addl. Civil Judge. They further asserted that Clause 6(a) of the State Election Commission’s circular was mandatory and that non-attestation of photographs was a substantive defect justifying rejection. They claimed the petitioner was not granted any special treatment, and Smt. Babli had ample opportunity to rectify the defect but failed to do so.
For the Respondent
Smt. Babli’s counsel argued that Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules permits election petitions on any ground, as the language "ground or grounds" is wide and unqualified. They relied on Anil Kumar v. Smt. Suchita, which held that election petitions can challenge incorrect acceptance or rejection of nominations, even if not explicitly listed. They contended that non-attestation of photographs was a technical defect under Rule 11(4), which prohibits rejection for non-substantial errors. They further alleged discriminatory treatment, as the petitioner was allowed to self-attest her photograph while Smt. Babli was denied the same opportunity, despite both having identical defects.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework under Part IX of the Constitution, the 1961 Act, and the 1994 Rules. It noted that Article 243-O(b) permits challenges to panchayat elections only through election petitions, and Rule 35 of the 1994 Rules allows such petitions to be filed within 30 days of declaration of results. Crucially, Rule 36 does not enumerate specific grounds, using instead the broad phrase "ground or grounds".
The Court distinguished Jyoti Basu and Anju, observing that those cases dealt with statutes that explicitly limited grounds for election petitions. In contrast, the 1994 Rules are silent on restrictions, thereby allowing a wide interpretation. The Court relied on Anil Kumar v. Smt. Suchita, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that rejection of nomination is a valid ground for election petition under pari materia rules.
"The word 'ground or grounds' employed in Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules is wide and unqualified. Had the legislature intended to restrict the grounds to those under the 1961 Act, it could have expressly referred to them. The silence of the Rules is not an omission but an intentional grant of broad jurisdiction."
Regarding the photograph attestation issue, the Court observed that Rule 11(4) of the 1994 Rules explicitly prohibits rejection of nomination papers on account of "technical defect or other error which is not of a substantial character." The circular’s requirement of photograph attestation was not mandated by the Rules or the Act. The Court held that such a requirement, even if issued under Section 243-K, cannot override the statutory protection against rejection for non-substantial defects.
The Court further noted that the Assistant Returning Officer’s letter dated 09.07.2021 and the State’s written submissions dated 15.02.2022, both of which alleged that Smt. Babli was given an opportunity to rectify the defect but failed to do so, were not considered by the Election Tribunal despite being on record. This omission rendered the Tribunal’s order legally flawed.
"The failure to consider documents that go to the root of the alleged discrimination - whether opportunity was equally afforded - constitutes a denial of natural justice and vitiates the entire adjudication."
The Court concluded that while the election petition was maintainable, the Tribunal’s decision was vitiated by non-application of mind to material evidence.
The Verdict
The writ petition was partly allowed. The order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the District Judge (Election Tribunal), Saharanpur, in Election Petition No. 217 of 2021, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Election Tribunal to pass a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, after considering the documents dated 09.07.2021 and 15.02.2022, and determining whether equal opportunity was afforded to both candidates to rectify the photograph attestation defect.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Election Petitions Can Challenge Nomination Rejection
- Practitioners may now file election petitions under the 1994 Rules to challenge rejection of nominations, even if not explicitly listed in the Rules.
- The phrase "ground or grounds" in Rule 36 is interpreted expansively, aligning with Article 243-O’s intent to provide a comprehensive remedy.
- This applies to all panchayat elections governed by similar rules in Uttar Pradesh.
Technical Defects Cannot Justify Automatic Rejection
- Non-attestation of photographs, missing signatures, or minor form irregularities are technical defects under Rule 11(4).
- Returning Officers must allow correction of such defects before rejection.
- Circulars issued by State Election Commissions cannot override statutory protections against rejection for non-substantial errors.
Equal Opportunity Is Mandatory
- If one candidate is granted opportunity to cure a defect, the same must be extended to all similarly situated candidates.
- Failure to consider evidence of differential treatment constitutes a violation of Article 14 and natural justice.
- Courts will remand cases where such evidence is ignored, even if the underlying legal principle is sound.
