Stay on High Court judgment does not revive quashed disqualification order, Patna HC rules

The petitioner was elected as Chief Ward Councillor/Chief Councillor of Naubatpur Nagar Panchayat in the 2020 municipal elections.

His election was challenged on the allegation that he had more than two children after the statutory cut-off date of 4 April 2008, attracting disqualification under Section 18(1)(m) read with Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.

The State Election Commission disqualified him in Case No. 12 of 2020 by order dated 2 March 2022.

The Patna High Court subsequently set aside that order on 9 May 2022 in CWJC No. 4175 of 2022.

After fresh elections in 2025, the petitioner was again elected to the municipal office.

Respondent No. 7 filed a fresh complaint on substantially identical grounds, registered as Case No. 26 of 2025.

The State Election Commission rejected the petitioner’s objections to maintainability and his prayer for stay on 10 September 2025.

It thereafter relied on the evidence and findings from the earlier case, without recording fresh evidence, and by order dated 17 October 2025 again disqualified the petitioner and set aside his election.

Whether the Supreme Court’s order staying the operation of the High Court judgment dated 9 May 2022 revived or restored the State Election Commission’s earlier disqualification order dated 2 March 2022?

Whether the State Election Commission could decide the fresh complaint in Case No. 26 of 2025 solely on the basis of material and findings from the earlier proceedings, without recording fresh evidence, while the issue remained pending before the Supreme Court?

Whether the State Election Commission’s orders dated 10 September 2025 and 17 October 2025 were legally sustainable?

The Court applied Sections 18(1)(m) and 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, under which the State Election Commission may determine pre- or post-election disqualification, subject to the safeguards identified in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, 2019 (4) PLJR 673 (FB), including reliance on unimpeachable material and referral of genuinely disputed questions of fact to an appropriate fact-finding forum.

The Court relied principally on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC 1, which distinguishes between quashing an order and staying its operation: a stay prevents the order from operating but does not revive or restore an earlier order, nor does it erase the stayed judgment from existence.

The Court also referred to the principle that an interim stay is binding between the parties but does not amount to a final declaration of law or extinguish the existence of the judgment under challenge.

The High Court held that the Supreme Court’s stay of the operation of the High Court judgment dated 9 May 2022 did not amount to setting aside or wiping out that judgment.

Consequently, the State Election Commission’s earlier order dated 2 March 2022 could not be treated as automatically revived or restored merely because the High Court judgment was stayed.

The Commission therefore erred in proceeding on the premise that the petitioner continued to stand disqualified under the earlier order.

The Court further found that the Commission decided the fresh complaint by relying exclusively on evidence from Case No. 12 of 2020 and by treating the earlier disqualification as conclusive, without undertaking any fresh evidentiary examination in Case No. 26 of 2025.

Since the underlying question of disqualification was pending before the Supreme Court, judicial discipline required the Commission to await the Supreme Court’s decision rather than determine the fresh complaint on the basis of its erroneous interpretation of the stay order.

It held that the Supreme Court’s interim stay did not revive the State Election Commission’s order dated 2 March 2022, and that the Commission had improperly relied on the earlier proceedings while deciding the fresh complaint.

Accordingly, the orders dated 10 September 2025 and 17 October 2025 passed in Case No. 26 of 2025 were declared unsustainable and set aside.

The writ application was allowed.