Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 105
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……………………….OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.20241 OF 2025)
SANDEEP SINGH BORA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
NARENDRA SINGH DEOPA
& ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the interim order
th
dated 18 July, 2025, passed by High Court of
1
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 192 of
2025, whereby the High Court stayed the operation of
th
the judgment dated 11 July, 2025, rendered by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2083 of
2025 and further directed the Returning Officer to allot
a symbol to respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) and
permit him to participate in the election to the office of
Zila Panchayat Member.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.02
17:03:30 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 1 of 15
3. The brief facts, in a nutshell, insofar as they are relevant
for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows:
3.1. The Uttarakhand State Election Commission issued a
th
revised notification dated 28 June, 2026, thereby
resuming the Panchayat elections in twelve districts of
the State. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 1 submitted
his nomination for election to the post of Zila Panchayat
Member from Constituency No. 11- Bharhgaon, District
Pithoragarh.
3.2. Subsequently, the appellant raised an objection alleging
failure on the part of respondent No. 1 to make the
requisite disclosures. Upon consideration thereof, the
th
Returning Officer, vide order dated 9 July, 2025,
cancelled the candidature of respondent No. 1.
3.3. Aggrieved by the said action, respondent No. 1
approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition (MS)
No. 2083 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, order
vide
th
dated 11 July, 2025, dismissed the writ petition,
observing that in view of the election process having
already been set in motion, the writ petition was not
liable to be entertained at that stage. On the very same
th
date, namely 11 July, 2025, the present appellant was
declared elected unopposed to the office of Zila
Panchayat Member, the remaining two candidates,
including respondent No. 1, having been declared
disqualified by the Election Officer.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 2 of 15
3.4. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 preferred an intra-
court appeal, being Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025,
without impleading the present appellant as a party. The
learned Division Bench, vide the impugned interim
order, stayed the operation of the judgment rendered by
the learned Single Judge and directed the Returning
Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 (the writ
petitioner) and to permit him to participate in the
election to the office of Zila Panchayat Member.
4. Therefore, the appellant is before this Court.
rd
5. This Court, vide order dated 23 July, 2025, issued
notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of the
th
interim order dated 18 July, 2025, passed by the High
Court. It was further clarified that the election process
would continue in accordance with law, and that the
result thereof would remain subject to the final outcome
of the present appeal.
6. Finally, when the matter was taken up for hearing on
th
12 January, 2026, learned counsel for respondent No.
1, who had earlier entered appearance, was not present.
As per the office report, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were
reported to be unserved. However, since the said
respondents are only pro-forma parties, we proceeded to
hear learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
reserved judgment on the same day.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 3 of 15
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and have carefully perused the material
available on record.
8. At the outset, we are unable to concur with the view
taken by the Division Bench of the High Court and, for
the reasons that shall be delineated hereinafter, are
inclined to set aside the same.
8.1. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ
petition instituted by respondent No. 1, assigned the
following reasons: -
2
a. That Article 243-O of the Constitution of India
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 the law
enacted by the Legislature of the concerned State.
b. That Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj
3
Act, 2016 provides an efficacious alternative remedy
by way of an election petition in cases of improper
rejection of nomination, and therefore, at that stage,
the writ petition before the High Court was not
maintainable.
8.2. In the intra-court appeal preferred by respondent No. 1,
the Division Bench, by the impugned interim order,
th
stayed the operation of the order dated 11 July, 2025,
passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “Panchayati Raj Act”.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 4 of 15
Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1
(the writ petitioner therein) and permit him to participate
in the election process for the office of Zila Panchayat
Member. In arriving at this conclusion, the Division
Bench assigned the following reasons: -
a. That the bar contained in Article 243-O of the
Constitution was held to be inapplicable to the present
case, as the challenge was not directed against the
election of any candidate, but was confined to the
alleged illegal rejection of the nomination of
respondent No. 1, for which, according to the Division
Bench, no efficacious alternative remedy was
available.
b. That Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act enumerates
the circumstances and grounds attracting
disqualification for the office of Zila Panchayat
Member, and in the facts of the present case, the
alleged non-disclosure of an acquittal in a prior
criminal case did not fall within any of the
disqualifications so specified.
9. 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. With a view to
maintaining a delicate balance between decisions
rendered by statutory authorities and judicial
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 5 of 15
intervention by way of judicial review, a stage was
reached where Parliament considered it appropriate to
accord constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj
institutions.
9.1. Accordingly, Part IX, titled “The Panchayats”, was
rd
inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (73
Amendment) Act, 1992. The said constitutional
amendment gives effect to Article 40 of the Directive
Principles of State Policy, which enjoins the State to take
steps to organise village panchayats and to endow them
with such powers and authority as may be necessary to
enable them to function as units of self-government. By
virtue of this amendment, the Panchayati Raj
institutions were elevated from a non-justiciable to a
constitutionally enforceable framework. At the same
time, the States were accorded sufficient latitude to
structure and implement the Panchayati Raj system
having due regard to their distinct geographical,
political, administrative and other local conditions.
9.2. Article 243-O of the Constitution, introduced by the
aforesaid constitutional amendment, places an express
embargo on judicial interference in matters relating to
elections to the Panchayats. The provision reads as
follows: -
243O. Bar to interference by courts in
electoral matters.– Notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution–
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 6 of 15
(a) the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of
seats to such constituencies, made or purporting
to be made under article 243K, shall not be called
in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called
in question except by an election petition
presented to such authority and in such
manner as is provided for by or under any law
made by the Legislature of a State .
( emphasis supplied )
Therefore, Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution makes it
abundantly clear that no election to any Panchayat can
be called in question except by way of an election petition
presented to such authority and in such manner as may
be provided by the State Legislature.
4
9.3. This Court, in Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh ,
while examining the object and purpose underlying the
incorporation of the bar contained in Article 243-O of the
Constitution, also considered the said provision in
juxtaposition with the plenary jurisdiction of the High
Courts under Article 226. The Court observed as follows:
“15. Prayers ( b ) and ( c ) aforementioned,
evidently, could not have been granted in favour
of the petitioner by the High Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is true that the High Court
exercises a plenary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. Such jurisdiction
being discretionary in nature may not be
exercised inter alia keeping in view the fact
that an efficacious alternative remedy is
available therefor . (See Sanjana M.
4
(2005) 8 SCC 383
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 7 of 15
Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 8
SCC 242 : (2005) 7 Scale 290] )
16. Article 243-O of the Constitution
mandates that all election disputes must be
determined only by way of an election
petition. This by itself may not per se bar
judicial review which is the basic structure of
the Constitution, but ordinarily such
jurisdiction would not be exercised . There may
be some cases where a writ petition would be
entertained but in this case we are not concerned
with the said question.
17. In C. Subrahmanyam [(1998) 8 SCC 703] a
three-Judge Bench of this Court observed that
a writ petition should not be entertained when
the main question which fell for decision
before the High Court was non-compliance
with the provisions of the Act which was one
of the grounds for an election petition in
terms of Rule 12 framed under the Act . ”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, it is evident that 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 of
the Constitution. The need for such judicial restraint is
further reinforced by the non-obstante clause with
which Article 243-O opens, namely, the expression
“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”.
9.4. Article 243-O(b), thus, places a bar on the exercise of
jurisdiction by Courts under the Constitution in matters
relating to elections to Panchayats, where a law has been
enacted by the Legislature of a State providing for such
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 8 of 15
elections. 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 to be presented
before the authority designated under the law enacted
by the State Legislature for that purpose.
10. In the present case, the State of Uttarakhand has
enacted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.
Consequently, the bar envisaged under Article 243-O of
the Constitution stands attracted. Therefore, if
th
respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the order dated 9
July, 2025, passed by the Election Officer rejecting his
nomination, the appropriate remedy lay within the
framework of the Panchayati Raj Act itself. At this stage,
it would be apposite to advert to Section 131H of the
Panchayati Raj Act, being the statutory provision which
directly governs the issue at hand. The said provision is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“131H. Application regarding election and
their revision.– (1) The election of a person as
Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or as member of a
Gram Panchayat shall not be called in
question except by an application presented
to such authority within such time and in
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 9 of 15
such manner as may be prescribed , on the
ground:-
(a) that this election has not been free election by
reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or
undue influence has extensively prevailed at the
election; or
(b) that the result of the election has been
materially affected-
(i) by the acceptance or rejection of any
nomination in improper manner ; or
(ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions
of this Act or the rules framed there under.
(2) . . .
(3) The application under sub-section (1) may be
presented by any candidate at the election or any
elector and shall contain such particulars as may
be prescribed;
Explanation:- Any person, who filed a
nomination paper at the election whether such
nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall
be deemed to be a candidate at the election.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the
powers to be prescribed under sub-section (4) the
rules may be provided for summarily hearing and
disposal of an application under subsection (1).
(6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the
prescribed authority who shall be Assistant
Collector (first class)/ Pargana Magistrate of
concerned Tehsil/ Pargana upon an
application under subsection (1) may, within
thirty days from the date of the order, apply
to the District Judge for revision of such order
or any one or more on the following grounds;
namely: -
(a) that the prescribed authority has exercised
such jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
(b) that the prescribed authority has failed to
exercise a such jurisdiction so vested;
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 10 of 15
(c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the
exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity.
(7) The District Judge may dispose of the
application for revision himself or may assign it
for disposal to any Additional District Judge, Civil
Judge or Additional Civil Judge under his
administrative control and may recall it from any
such officer or transfer it to any other such
officer. ”
( emphasis supplied )
10.1. Section 131H specifically governs disputes relating to
the election of a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a Member of a
Gram Panchayat. The provision, being couched in
negative terms, warrants heightened judicial
circumspection while entertaining proceedings contrary
to its mandate. It expressly stipulates that no election
shall be called in question except by an application
presented before the prescribed authority, within such
time and in such manner as may be laid down.
10.2. Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 131H of the Panchayati Raj
Act contemplates a situation where the result of an
election has been materially affected by the improper
acceptance or rejection of a nomination. It is the specific
case of respondent No. 1 in the writ petition that the
Election Officer rejected his candidature on a ground
which, according to him, is not contemplated under
Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the provision which
enumerates the disqualifications for membership of a
Zila Panchayat.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 11 of 15
10.3. Therefore, if, according to respondent No. 1, there was
a specific infraction of the statutory provisions by the
Election Officer, the remedy availed by him was also
required to be in consonance with the scheme of the very
statute. It would thus not be permissible for respondent
No. 1 to seek enforcement of compliance with the
provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act by the authorities
conducting the election, while at the same time electing
to bypass the statutorily prescribed remedy available
under the said enactment.
10.4. Sub-section (6) of Section 131H of the Panchayati Raj
Act explicitly stipulates that the prescribed authority
before whom an election petition is to be presented shall
be an Assistant Collector (First Class) or a Pargana
Magistrate. In view of the comprehensive statutory
framework providing both the forum and the procedure
for redressal of grievances arising out of non-compliance
with the provisions of the Act, we find ourselves unable
to concur with the undue haste with which the Division
Bench proceeded to deal with the matter at hand.
10.5. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Laxmibai v.
5
Collector , cited with approval the decision in N.P.
Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
6
Constituency , wherein it was held that in cases of
rejection of a nomination, the sole remedy available is by
way of an election petition to be presented after the
5
(2020) 12 SCC 186
6
(1952) 1 SCC 9
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 12 of 15
conclusion of the election process, and that even the
High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution during the interregnum. The Court
categorically observed that the ground of rejection of a
nomination paper cannot be agitated in any other
manner, at any other stage, or before any other forum.
11. In the present case, the appellant had already been
th
declared elected unopposed on 11 July, 2025 since the
remaining two candidates, including respondent No. 1,
had been declared disqualified by the competent
authorities. The High Court, therefore, committed a
manifest error in interfering in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction on three counts. First , the
High Court acted in the teeth of the constitutional
embargo contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution.
Second , by directing the Returning Officer to allot a
symbol to respondent No. 1 and permitting him to
participate in the election process, the High Court issued
directions contrary to a process which had already
attained finality with the appellant having been declared
elected unopposed. Lastly , the High Court proceeded to
stay the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the
writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, without affording
an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who stood
directly and adversely affected by such directions,
having already been elected to the post in question.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 13 of 15
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we summarise our
conclusions as under: -
I. 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.
II. The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or
stalled at the behest of an individual grievance. 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.
III. In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and
exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition.
Given the non-obstante nature of Article 243-O of the
Constitution, its mandate is required to be adhered to in
both letter and spirit. Where the statute provides a
complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, the
extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution would defeat the very object for which
Article 243-O was enacted as a non-obstante provision.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 14 of 15
th
13. Accordingly, the interim order dated 18 July, 2025,
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in
Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 is set aside, and the writ
appeal stands dismissed.
14. Consequently, the present appeal stands allowed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………….J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………………….J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 02, 2026
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 15 of 15
2026 INSC 105
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……………………….OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.20241 OF 2025)
SANDEEP SINGH BORA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
NARENDRA SINGH DEOPA
& ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the interim order
th
dated 18 July, 2025, passed by High Court of
1
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 192 of
2025, whereby the High Court stayed the operation of
th
the judgment dated 11 July, 2025, rendered by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2083 of
2025 and further directed the Returning Officer to allot
a symbol to respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) and
permit him to participate in the election to the office of
Zila Panchayat Member.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.02
17:03:30 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 1 of 15
3. The brief facts, in a nutshell, insofar as they are relevant
for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows:
3.1. The Uttarakhand State Election Commission issued a
th
revised notification dated 28 June, 2026, thereby
resuming the Panchayat elections in twelve districts of
the State. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 1 submitted
his nomination for election to the post of Zila Panchayat
Member from Constituency No. 11- Bharhgaon, District
Pithoragarh.
3.2. Subsequently, the appellant raised an objection alleging
failure on the part of respondent No. 1 to make the
requisite disclosures. Upon consideration thereof, the
th
Returning Officer, vide order dated 9 July, 2025,
cancelled the candidature of respondent No. 1.
3.3. Aggrieved by the said action, respondent No. 1
approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition (MS)
No. 2083 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, order
vide
th
dated 11 July, 2025, dismissed the writ petition,
observing that in view of the election process having
already been set in motion, the writ petition was not
liable to be entertained at that stage. On the very same
th
date, namely 11 July, 2025, the present appellant was
declared elected unopposed to the office of Zila
Panchayat Member, the remaining two candidates,
including respondent No. 1, having been declared
disqualified by the Election Officer.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 2 of 15
3.4. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 preferred an intra-
court appeal, being Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025,
without impleading the present appellant as a party. The
learned Division Bench, vide the impugned interim
order, stayed the operation of the judgment rendered by
the learned Single Judge and directed the Returning
Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 (the writ
petitioner) and to permit him to participate in the
election to the office of Zila Panchayat Member.
4. Therefore, the appellant is before this Court.
rd
5. This Court, vide order dated 23 July, 2025, issued
notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of the
th
interim order dated 18 July, 2025, passed by the High
Court. It was further clarified that the election process
would continue in accordance with law, and that the
result thereof would remain subject to the final outcome
of the present appeal.
6. Finally, when the matter was taken up for hearing on
th
12 January, 2026, learned counsel for respondent No.
1, who had earlier entered appearance, was not present.
As per the office report, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were
reported to be unserved. However, since the said
respondents are only pro-forma parties, we proceeded to
hear learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
reserved judgment on the same day.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 3 of 15
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and have carefully perused the material
available on record.
8. At the outset, we are unable to concur with the view
taken by the Division Bench of the High Court and, for
the reasons that shall be delineated hereinafter, are
inclined to set aside the same.
8.1. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ
petition instituted by respondent No. 1, assigned the
following reasons: -
2
a. That Article 243-O of the Constitution of India
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 the law
enacted by the Legislature of the concerned State.
b. That Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj
3
Act, 2016 provides an efficacious alternative remedy
by way of an election petition in cases of improper
rejection of nomination, and therefore, at that stage,
the writ petition before the High Court was not
maintainable.
8.2. In the intra-court appeal preferred by respondent No. 1,
the Division Bench, by the impugned interim order,
th
stayed the operation of the order dated 11 July, 2025,
passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “Panchayati Raj Act”.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 4 of 15
Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1
(the writ petitioner therein) and permit him to participate
in the election process for the office of Zila Panchayat
Member. In arriving at this conclusion, the Division
Bench assigned the following reasons: -
a. That the bar contained in Article 243-O of the
Constitution was held to be inapplicable to the present
case, as the challenge was not directed against the
election of any candidate, but was confined to the
alleged illegal rejection of the nomination of
respondent No. 1, for which, according to the Division
Bench, no efficacious alternative remedy was
available.
b. That Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act enumerates
the circumstances and grounds attracting
disqualification for the office of Zila Panchayat
Member, and in the facts of the present case, the
alleged non-disclosure of an acquittal in a prior
criminal case did not fall within any of the
disqualifications so specified.
9. 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. With a view to
maintaining a delicate balance between decisions
rendered by statutory authorities and judicial
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 5 of 15
intervention by way of judicial review, a stage was
reached where Parliament considered it appropriate to
accord constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj
institutions.
9.1. Accordingly, Part IX, titled “The Panchayats”, was
rd
inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (73
Amendment) Act, 1992. The said constitutional
amendment gives effect to Article 40 of the Directive
Principles of State Policy, which enjoins the State to take
steps to organise village panchayats and to endow them
with such powers and authority as may be necessary to
enable them to function as units of self-government. By
virtue of this amendment, the Panchayati Raj
institutions were elevated from a non-justiciable to a
constitutionally enforceable framework. At the same
time, the States were accorded sufficient latitude to
structure and implement the Panchayati Raj system
having due regard to their distinct geographical,
political, administrative and other local conditions.
9.2. Article 243-O of the Constitution, introduced by the
aforesaid constitutional amendment, places an express
embargo on judicial interference in matters relating to
elections to the Panchayats. The provision reads as
follows: -
243O. Bar to interference by courts in
electoral matters.– Notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution–
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 6 of 15
(a) the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of
seats to such constituencies, made or purporting
to be made under article 243K, shall not be called
in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called
in question except by an election petition
presented to such authority and in such
manner as is provided for by or under any law
made by the Legislature of a State .
( emphasis supplied )
Therefore, Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution makes it
abundantly clear that no election to any Panchayat can
be called in question except by way of an election petition
presented to such authority and in such manner as may
be provided by the State Legislature.
4
9.3. This Court, in Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh ,
while examining the object and purpose underlying the
incorporation of the bar contained in Article 243-O of the
Constitution, also considered the said provision in
juxtaposition with the plenary jurisdiction of the High
Courts under Article 226. The Court observed as follows:
“15. Prayers ( b ) and ( c ) aforementioned,
evidently, could not have been granted in favour
of the petitioner by the High Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is true that the High Court
exercises a plenary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. Such jurisdiction
being discretionary in nature may not be
exercised inter alia keeping in view the fact
that an efficacious alternative remedy is
available therefor . (See Sanjana M.
4
(2005) 8 SCC 383
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 7 of 15
Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 8
SCC 242 : (2005) 7 Scale 290] )
16. Article 243-O of the Constitution
mandates that all election disputes must be
determined only by way of an election
petition. This by itself may not per se bar
judicial review which is the basic structure of
the Constitution, but ordinarily such
jurisdiction would not be exercised . There may
be some cases where a writ petition would be
entertained but in this case we are not concerned
with the said question.
17. In C. Subrahmanyam [(1998) 8 SCC 703] a
three-Judge Bench of this Court observed that
a writ petition should not be entertained when
the main question which fell for decision
before the High Court was non-compliance
with the provisions of the Act which was one
of the grounds for an election petition in
terms of Rule 12 framed under the Act . ”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, it is evident that 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 of
the Constitution. The need for such judicial restraint is
further reinforced by the non-obstante clause with
which Article 243-O opens, namely, the expression
“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”.
9.4. Article 243-O(b), thus, places a bar on the exercise of
jurisdiction by Courts under the Constitution in matters
relating to elections to Panchayats, where a law has been
enacted by the Legislature of a State providing for such
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 8 of 15
elections. 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 to be presented
before the authority designated under the law enacted
by the State Legislature for that purpose.
10. In the present case, the State of Uttarakhand has
enacted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.
Consequently, the bar envisaged under Article 243-O of
the Constitution stands attracted. Therefore, if
th
respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the order dated 9
July, 2025, passed by the Election Officer rejecting his
nomination, the appropriate remedy lay within the
framework of the Panchayati Raj Act itself. At this stage,
it would be apposite to advert to Section 131H of the
Panchayati Raj Act, being the statutory provision which
directly governs the issue at hand. The said provision is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“131H. Application regarding election and
their revision.– (1) The election of a person as
Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or as member of a
Gram Panchayat shall not be called in
question except by an application presented
to such authority within such time and in
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 9 of 15
such manner as may be prescribed , on the
ground:-
(a) that this election has not been free election by
reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or
undue influence has extensively prevailed at the
election; or
(b) that the result of the election has been
materially affected-
(i) by the acceptance or rejection of any
nomination in improper manner ; or
(ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions
of this Act or the rules framed there under.
(2) . . .
(3) The application under sub-section (1) may be
presented by any candidate at the election or any
elector and shall contain such particulars as may
be prescribed;
Explanation:- Any person, who filed a
nomination paper at the election whether such
nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall
be deemed to be a candidate at the election.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the
powers to be prescribed under sub-section (4) the
rules may be provided for summarily hearing and
disposal of an application under subsection (1).
(6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the
prescribed authority who shall be Assistant
Collector (first class)/ Pargana Magistrate of
concerned Tehsil/ Pargana upon an
application under subsection (1) may, within
thirty days from the date of the order, apply
to the District Judge for revision of such order
or any one or more on the following grounds;
namely: -
(a) that the prescribed authority has exercised
such jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
(b) that the prescribed authority has failed to
exercise a such jurisdiction so vested;
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 10 of 15
(c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the
exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity.
(7) The District Judge may dispose of the
application for revision himself or may assign it
for disposal to any Additional District Judge, Civil
Judge or Additional Civil Judge under his
administrative control and may recall it from any
such officer or transfer it to any other such
officer. ”
( emphasis supplied )
10.1. Section 131H specifically governs disputes relating to
the election of a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a Member of a
Gram Panchayat. The provision, being couched in
negative terms, warrants heightened judicial
circumspection while entertaining proceedings contrary
to its mandate. It expressly stipulates that no election
shall be called in question except by an application
presented before the prescribed authority, within such
time and in such manner as may be laid down.
10.2. Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 131H of the Panchayati Raj
Act contemplates a situation where the result of an
election has been materially affected by the improper
acceptance or rejection of a nomination. It is the specific
case of respondent No. 1 in the writ petition that the
Election Officer rejected his candidature on a ground
which, according to him, is not contemplated under
Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the provision which
enumerates the disqualifications for membership of a
Zila Panchayat.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 11 of 15
10.3. Therefore, if, according to respondent No. 1, there was
a specific infraction of the statutory provisions by the
Election Officer, the remedy availed by him was also
required to be in consonance with the scheme of the very
statute. It would thus not be permissible for respondent
No. 1 to seek enforcement of compliance with the
provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act by the authorities
conducting the election, while at the same time electing
to bypass the statutorily prescribed remedy available
under the said enactment.
10.4. Sub-section (6) of Section 131H of the Panchayati Raj
Act explicitly stipulates that the prescribed authority
before whom an election petition is to be presented shall
be an Assistant Collector (First Class) or a Pargana
Magistrate. In view of the comprehensive statutory
framework providing both the forum and the procedure
for redressal of grievances arising out of non-compliance
with the provisions of the Act, we find ourselves unable
to concur with the undue haste with which the Division
Bench proceeded to deal with the matter at hand.
10.5. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Laxmibai v.
5
Collector , cited with approval the decision in N.P.
Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
6
Constituency , wherein it was held that in cases of
rejection of a nomination, the sole remedy available is by
way of an election petition to be presented after the
5
(2020) 12 SCC 186
6
(1952) 1 SCC 9
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 12 of 15
conclusion of the election process, and that even the
High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution during the interregnum. The Court
categorically observed that the ground of rejection of a
nomination paper cannot be agitated in any other
manner, at any other stage, or before any other forum.
11. In the present case, the appellant had already been
th
declared elected unopposed on 11 July, 2025 since the
remaining two candidates, including respondent No. 1,
had been declared disqualified by the competent
authorities. The High Court, therefore, committed a
manifest error in interfering in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction on three counts. First , the
High Court acted in the teeth of the constitutional
embargo contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution.
Second , by directing the Returning Officer to allot a
symbol to respondent No. 1 and permitting him to
participate in the election process, the High Court issued
directions contrary to a process which had already
attained finality with the appellant having been declared
elected unopposed. Lastly , the High Court proceeded to
stay the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the
writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, without affording
an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who stood
directly and adversely affected by such directions,
having already been elected to the post in question.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 13 of 15
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we summarise our
conclusions as under: -
I. 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.
II. The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or
stalled at the behest of an individual grievance. 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.
III. In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and
exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition.
Given the non-obstante nature of Article 243-O of the
Constitution, its mandate is required to be adhered to in
both letter and spirit. Where the statute provides a
complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, the
extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution would defeat the very object for which
Article 243-O was enacted as a non-obstante provision.
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 14 of 15
th
13. Accordingly, the interim order dated 18 July, 2025,
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in
Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 is set aside, and the writ
appeal stands dismissed.
14. Consequently, the present appeal stands allowed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………….J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………………….J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 02, 2026
C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 15 of 15