Ongoing election shall proceed, while competent authorities must decide procedural objections in accordance with law.

The petitioners, registered Ayurvedic medical practitioners and eligible voters in the election concerning the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, invoked Article 226 challenging aspects of the ongoing election process.

Their objections concerned the alleged use of identifiable serial numbers on ballot papers, the collection, custody and preservation of ballots before counting, and the appointment of a Returning Officer who was himself a registered Ayurvedic practitioner and voter, allegedly creating an apprehension of conflict of interest.

They stated that representations had been submitted to the Returning Officer and competent AYUSH authorities, but effective corrective measures had not been taken.

During hearing, the petitioners clarified that they did not seek stoppage of the election and were satisfied if their objections were considered by the competent authorities in accordance with law.

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stated that one objection had already been addressed and undertook to consider the remaining objections and take appropriate action, if required, in accordance with law.

The State also assured the Court that the election would be conducted strictly under the applicable Act and Rules.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the statutory framework governing the election, namely the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa Vyavasayi Act, 1970 and the Rules framed thereunder, including the provisions relied upon by the petitioners concerning the Registrar’s statutory duties and conduct of elections.

The governing principle was that election-related procedural objections should ordinarily be considered by the competent statutory authorities under the applicable Act and Rules, and the election process should not be unnecessarily stalled where the petitioners themselves do not seek its stoppage and the authorities undertake to examine the objections in accordance with law.

The Court also preserved the petitioners’ right to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum for any illegality or irregularity arising during or after the election.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ grievance was confined to procedural aspects of the election and that they expressly did not seek to halt the ongoing process.

Since the objections were matters falling for consideration under the 1970 Act and the applicable Rules, the competent authorities were the appropriate forum to examine them in the first instance.

The Court further relied on the respondents’ submission that one objection had already been addressed and that the remaining objections would be considered and acted upon, if necessary, in accordance with law.

In these circumstances, staying the election would serve no useful purpose; however, the authorities remained bound to consider the objections and take consequential steps consistent with the statutory framework.

The Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the alleged ballot-identification, custody, or conflict-of-interest concerns.

The election process was permitted to proceed in accordance with the applicable law and was not to be stalled merely because the petition had been filed.

The competent authorities were directed to duly consider the petitioners’ objections, to the extent required at that stage, and to take appropriate consequential action strictly under the 1970 Act, the Rules, and the governing election procedure.

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the competent authority during the election if any unlawful act or omission occurred, and to pursue an appropriate remedy after completion of the election if any grievance or alleged irregularity survived.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the objections, and there was no order as to costs.