The Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to contest or question an election is statutory in nature and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law governing the field. It held that High Courts must refrain from interfering with the electoral process through writ jurisdiction once elections are underway, particularly where the statute provides for the remedy of an election petition.
A Bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that Article 243-O of the Constitution places an express constitutional embargo on judicial interference in Panchayat elections when a State law provides a complete mechanism for redressal.
The Court said that once the election process has commenced, individual grievances cannot be used as a basis to stall or interdict elections through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“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 remain mindful of the overarching public interest in ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of elections across the State,” the Bench held.
The Court further emphasised that in respect of individual grievances arising during elections, the ultimate and exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition. It said that given the non obstante nature of Article 243-O, its mandate must be followed in both letter and spirit.
Allowing an appeal filed by Sandeep Singh Bora, the Supreme Court set aside an interim order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court which had interfered with the election process for the post of Zila Panchayat Member.
The High Court had stayed the operation of a Single Judge’s order dismissing a writ petition and directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to Narendra Singh Deopa and permit him to participate in the election. Deopa’s nomination had earlier been rejected by the Returning Officer following objections that he had failed to make requisite disclosures.
The Single Judge had dismissed Deopa’s writ petition, holding that since the election process had already commenced, the High Court could not entertain the challenge at that stage. On the same day, July 11, 2025, the appellant Sandeep Singh Bora was declared elected unopposed, as the remaining candidates including Deopa were disqualified by the Election Officer.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court interfered, holding that the alleged non-disclosure of an acquittal in a prior criminal case did not amount to a disqualification under Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act.
Disagreeing with this approach, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction by interfering with the electoral process in disregard of settled law.
The Bench traced the constitutional framework governing Panchayat elections and noted that with the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, Panchayati Raj institutions were elevated to a constitutionally enforceable status. At the same time, Article 243-O was introduced to place a clear bar on judicial interference in electoral matters.
The Court pointed out that Article 243-O(b) categorically provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by way of an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided by the State Legislature.
“Where a specific statutory remedy is available by way of an election petition, the High Court must exercise great circumspection and restraint in invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226,” the Bench observed.
It further clarified that Article 243-O does not abrogate the power of judicial review, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Instead, it channels judicial review through a statutorily prescribed mechanism.
In the present case, the Court noted that the State of Uttarakhand has enacted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which provides a complete and efficacious remedy by way of an election petition. Consequently, the constitutional bar under Article 243-O was fully attracted.
The Bench held that if Deopa was aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination, the appropriate remedy lay within the framework of the Panchayati Raj Act and not through a writ petition. Bypassing the statutory remedy was impermissible.
The Court also faulted the High Court for proceeding with undue haste and for issuing directions that ran contrary to an election process which had already attained finality with the appellant having been declared elected unopposed. It further noted that the interim order was passed without granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing, despite his election being directly affected.
Holding that the High Court committed a manifest error in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the settled position of law governing election disputes.

Election Disputes Must Be Raised Only Through Election Petitions, Not Writs: Supreme Court

Tags

Articles

Event Corner

Smart Invester