Civil Judge Vested with Exclusive Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Disqualifications Challenged via Election Petitions

The Petitioner challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 to Ward No. 5, Angden Park, under the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993, alleging disqualification under Section 16(k) due to interest in government contracts.

The Petitioner filed an election petition before the Civil Judge, Soreng. On 17.04.2023, the Civil Judge framed issues and referred the question of disqualification to the "Prescribed Authority" (Director-Panchayat) under Sections 29 and 120 of the Act.

The Prescribed Authority subsequently decided the reference on 20.06.2023.

The Petitioner challenged both the referral order and the Prescribed Authority’s subsequent order before the High Court via a Writ Petition.

1. Whether the Civil Judge, while hearing an election petition under Section 119, has the power to refer the issue of a candidate's disqualification to the "Prescribed Authority" under Section 120.

2. Whether the "Prescribed Authority" has jurisdiction to adjudicate disqualifications arising at the stage of being "chosen as" a member through an election.

The court applied Section 16 of the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993, which distinguishes between being "chosen as" (pre-election/election stage) and "being" (post-election tenure) a member.

Section 119, which mandates that elections can only be questioned before a prescribed "Authority" (defined as the Civil Judge under Section 130(2)(xx) and Rule 88 of the Sikkim Panchayat (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1997).

Interpretation of Article 329(b) of the Constitution through the precedent of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v. Madhavrao Kinhalkar, establishing that the validity of an elected candidate can only be examined by the designated Election Tribunal (Civil Judge) following prescribed procedures.

The Court reasoned that Section 16 of the Act contemplates two distinct scenarios: (i) disqualification for being chosen (election disputes) and (ii) disqualification for continuing as a member (tenure disputes).

For the first scenario, Chapter X of the Rules of 1997 provides a complete code where the Civil Judge must try the petition and pass orders under Rule 99; this chapter does not permit a reference to the Prescribed Authority.

The Court clarified that Section 120, which uses the phrase "has become subject to disqualification" (present tense), applies only to sitting members during their tenure, not to candidates at the time of election.

Consequently, by referring the matter, the Civil Judge abdicated his statutory duty to try the election petition, and the Prescribed Authority usurped jurisdiction it did not possess under Section 119.

The orders dated 17.04.2023 (referral) and 20.06.2023 (decision by Prescribed Authority) were set aside for lack of jurisdiction and the election petition was reverted to the Civil Judge, Soreng, for trial and decision in accordance with Chapter X of the Rules of 1997.