Uttarakhand High Court exposes serious misconduct by election officers in rejecting valid panchayat nominations. The court calls the act a “threat to democracy” and orders urgent corrective action.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTARAKHAND: The Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Seeta vs State Election Commissioner & Anr. has marked serious irregularities by returning officers during the nomination process for the upcoming panchayat elections scheduled later this month.
Background of the Case
In 2025, Panchayat elections in Uttarakhand, the nomination of petitioner Seeta, a candidate for Ward No. 5, Bhutsi Panchayat, was arbitrarily rejected by the Returning Officer. Based on a doubt over the authenticity of her No Dues Certificate from a Co-operative Bank.
Despite submission of a second certificate, this time signed by the Secretary of the Bank, her nomination was still dismissed, rendering her rival the sole candidate.
High Court’s Observation
The High Court skipped no words in exposing the blatant misuse of power. The Court described the conduct of the Returning Officers as,
“Shocking case of sheer abuse of power, whereby, on the mere say of the competing candidate that the ‘No Dues Certificate’ “seems” to be a fake, the Returning Officer, during scrutiny, has rejected the nomination of the petitioner.”
The Court also noted that,
“To state that this is a clear case of endangering democracy could be going a little soft on the Returning Officer. It appears that the Returning Officer has apparently misused the authority vested in him to ensure the election of the candidate.”
ALSO READ: CJI Gavai: “Constitution of India Is Supreme, All Three Wings Of Democracy Work Under It”
The Bench suspected collusion or bias, emphasizing the absence of a legal basis or inquiry.
“Even without an inquiry with the Co-operative Bank, or any expert opinion, the Returning Officer has blatantly and arbitrarily concluded that the Certificate is a fake one.”
The Standing Counsel cited Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution to argue that election disputes should only be addressed through election petitions, not writs. But the Court rejected this, invoking the landmark ruling in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216],
“What is questioned in the present Writ Petition is not the election of any candidate, but the per se illegal rejection of the nomination of the petitioner, for which there is no efficacious remedy. The relief claimed is in furtherance of the elections and not to the detriment of the election.”
The Court made it clear that,
“We are of the prima facie view that the said bar does not appear to operate in a case of instant nature.”
The Court also referenced the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, specifically Section 131H(1)(b). It noted that,
“If it were a case of improper rejection, this Court would have certainly applied the above provision. Prima facie, the rejection appears to be illegal.”
The Court relied on the precedents, including the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in L. Ramakrishnappa v. Presiding Officer (ILR 1991 KAR 4421), which stated,
“…The relief of Election Petition is not an ‘Efficacious Remedy’… the candidate would have lost the statutorily vested right to participate in what is popularly known as the ‘dance of democracy’…”
Further, referring to Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmed Ishaque, the Court stated,
“Any restriction on the power of the High Court under Article 226… must be founded on some provision in the Constitution itself.”
The Court granted interim relief, ordering,
“There shall be a stay of the “Cancelled List” in so far as it relates to the Petitioner and further there shall be an interim direction, directing the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to the petitioner and print the name of the petitioner in the ballot papers.”
Case Title: Seeta vs State Election Commissioner and another.
WRIT PETITION (MB) No. 532 OF 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Democracy
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
