Today, On 26th September, The Supreme Court dismissed the Uttarakhand State Election Commission’s appeal and imposed Rs.2 lakh costs. The Court clarified that “a candidate’s nomination paper would not be rejected solely for appearing on the electoral roll of multiple constituencies.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the Uttarakhand State Election Commission’s (SEC) appeal and imposed costs of Rs.2 lakh for issuing a clarification stating that a candidate’s nomination paper would not be rejected solely on the basis that their name appears on the electoral roll of more than one gram panchayat, territorial constituency, or municipal body.
While rejecting the SEC’s appeal against a stay on this clarification, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned,
“How the election body could contravene statutory provisions.”
In July, a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court, led by Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra, noted that the SEC’s clarification contradicted the explicit provisions of Sections 9(6) and 9(7) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which prohibit a voter from being registered in more than one territorial constituency or on more than one electoral roll.
The Court stated,
“The clarification, as noted supra, prima facie, appears to be in the teeth of the statutory provisions noted above. When the Statute expressly prohibits the registration of a voter in more than one territorial constituency or more than one electoral roll and the same being a statutory bar, the clarification now given by the State Election Commission appears to be in the teeth of the bar under Sub-Section (6) and Sub-Section (7) of Section 9. In that view, the clarification, prima facie, appears to be contrary to the mandate of Sub-Section (6) and Sub Section (7) of Section 9, requires to be stayed and is stayed and shall not be acted upon,”
The High Court’s ruling came in response to a case brought by Shakti Singh, who claimed that the SEC had neglected its responsibility to adequately scrutinize and verify nomination papers.
Also Read: Woman’s Gotra Changes When She Marries: Supreme Court On Widow’s Property Rights
The petitioner argued that this negligence allowed individuals to be registered on multiple electoral rolls, thereby compromising the integrity of the electoral process.
Despite numerous complaints, several candidates were permitted to contest the election, prompting the SEC to issue the controversial clarification. Following the High Court’s stay, the SEC appealed to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed today.