New Delhi, Feb 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday said that election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said in respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition.
The bench delivered its verdict on an appeal challenging a July 2025 interim order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had directed the returning officer to allot a symbol and permit a man to participate in the election to the office of zila panchayat member.
The top court said the right to contest or question an election being statutory in nature, must be strictly construed and exercised in accordance with the statute governing the field.
“The high court must, therefore, eschew the grant of liberal interim reliefs in favour of individuals and instead remain mindful of the overarching public interest in ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of elections across the state,” the bench said.
“The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance,” the bench said, while setting aside the high court’s interim order.
It noted the Uttarakhand State Election Commission had issued a revised notification resuming the panchayat elections in 12 districts and the man submitted his nomination for election to the post of zila panchayat member from a constituency in Pithoragarh district.
His candidature was cancelled after objection was raised alleging failure on his part to make the requisite disclosures.
Later, the man moved the high court aggrieved by cancellation of his candidature.
A single judge of the high court dismissed the plea observing that in view of the election process having already been set in motion, the petition was not liable to be entertained at that stage.
The man then preferred an intra-court appeal and a division bench of the high court stayed the operation of the judgment rendered by the single judge.
The division bench also directed the returning officer to allot a symbol to the man and to permit him to participate in the election.
The appellant, who was declared elected unopposed to the office of zila panchayat member, then moved the apex court challenging the high court’s order.
In its verdict, the apex court noted that the single judge had assigned reasons, including that Article 243-O of the Constitution contains an express bar, stipulating that no election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by way of an election petition, to be governed by law enacted by the legislature of the concerned state.
“In our considered view, the division bench transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction in interfering with the electoral process, in disregard of the settled position of law. The election jurisprudence in this country has undergone a significant evolution,” the top court said.
It said with a view to maintaining a delicate balance between decisions rendered by statutory authorities and judicial intervention by way of judicial review, a stage was reached where Parliament considered it appropriate to accord constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj institutions.
The bench said Uttarakhand had enacted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and consequently, the bar envisaged under Article 243-O of the Constitution stands attracted.
“By virtue of the express constitutional embargo contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, the high court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where a law enacted by the State Legislature provides for the remedy of an election petition to redress grievances arising during the course of an election,” it said. PTI ABA ABA KVK KVK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.