High Court Order Directing Reinstatement Of Disqualified Panchayat Nominee Is Set Aside; Election-Remedy Exclusivity Reaffirmed

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal against an interim order of the High Court of Uttarakhand which had stayed a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition and directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to a candidate and permit his participation in Zila Panchayat elections. The appeal challenged the Division Bench's intervention in the election process after the appellant had been declared elected unopposed.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's interim order dated 18 July 2025 and held that judicial interference under Article 226 was impermissible where the Constitution and state statute provided a specific election remedy. The bench emphasised that Article 243‑O places an "express embargo" on courts in electoral matters concerning Panchayats and that grievances arising from rejection of nominations must ordinarily be pursued by the statutory election petition mechanism under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. The Court noted that the High Court had transgressed its jurisdiction by issuing directions after the election process had reached finality and without affording the appellant a hearing. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The judgment reiterated that "no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition" and that interim judicial reliefs which impede the electoral process must be granted with great circumspection.

Background The dispute arose after the Uttarakhand State Election Commission resumed Panchayat elections by a notification dated 28 June 2025. Respondent No.1 filed nomination papers for Zila Panchayat Member from Constituency No.11 (Bharhgaon, Pithoragarh). The appellant objected to the nomination alleging nondisclosure; the Returning Officer cancelled the candidature by order dated 9 July 2025. Respondent No.1 moved the High Court in Writ Petition (MS) No.2083 of 2025; the Single Judge dismissed the writ on 11 July 2025, holding that the writ was not maintainable in view of the ongoing election process. On the same date the appellant was declared elected unopposed after other candidates were held disqualified. Respondent No.1 then filed Special Appeal No.192 of 2025 (intra‑court) without impleading the appellant; the Division Bench stayed the Single Judge's order and directed allotment of a symbol to respondent No.1 and his participation in the election. The appellant appealed to this Court.

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional and statutory scheme: Part IX of the Constitution (inserted by the 73rd Amendment) and Article 243‑O, and the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, particularly Section 131H which prescribes the procedure for challenging elections and provides for an application (election petition) to prescribed authorities and revision to the District Judge. The Court relied on precedents that circumscribe writ jurisdiction where a specific election remedy exists and observed that the High Court's directions futilely attempted to alter a process that had attained finality. The Court recalled that it had earlier issued notice and temporarily stayed the High Court's interim order on 23 July 2025 while permitting the election process to continue, with the result subject to the appeal's outcome. Ultimately the appeal was allowed, the interim order of the High Court was set aside and the writ appeal dismissed. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 105 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20241 of 2025) Case Title: Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sandeep Singh Bora (Appellant) — counsel not indicated For the Respondent(s): Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors. — counsel not indicated