1. Election candidate challenged rejection of nomination before High Court after being declared disqualified, seeking judicial interference with the electoral process for a local body office. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 115
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Sandeep Singh Bora – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 691 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 20241 of 2025)
Decided On : 02-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at behest of an individual grievance – Existence of a law made by State Legislature is a condition precedent for operation of embargo contemplated under Article 243-O of Constitution.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 243-O and 226 – Election process – Scope of interference – Election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at behest of an individual grievance – Right to contest or question an election being statutory in nature, must be strictly construed and exercised in accordance with statute governing field – High Court must eschew grant of liberal interim reliefs in favour of individuals and instead remain mindful of overarching public interest in ensuring smooth and uninterrupted conduct of elections across the State – In respect of individual grievances, ultimate and exclusive remedy lies by way of election petition – Given non-obstante nature of Article 243-O of Constitution, its mandate is required to be adhered to in both letter and spirit – Where statute provides a complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution would defeat very object for which Article 243-O was enacted as a non-obstante provision. (Paras 9.3 and 12)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 243-O – Election process – Scope of interference – Article 243-O(b) places bar on exercise of jurisdiction by Courts under Constitution in matters relating to elections to Panchayats, where a law has been enacted by Legislature of a State providing for such elections – Existence of a law made by State Legislature is a condition precedent for operation of embargo contemplated under Article 243-O – Provision does not abrogate sacrosanct power of judicial review, which forms part of basic structure of Constitution. (Para 9.4)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against interim order dated 18th July, 2025, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025, whereby High Court stayed operation of judgment dated 11th July, 2025, rendered by Single Judge in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2083 of 2025 and further directed Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 (Writ Petitioner) and permit him to participate in election to office of Zila Panchayat Member.
Findings of Court:
Interim order dated 18th July, 2025, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The election process for Panchayats cannot be easily halted or challenged based on individual grievances. The process is protected by constitutional provisions, specifically Article 243-O, which mandates that disputes related to elections be resolved only through a prescribed statutory mechanism, namely an election petition (!) (!) .
-
The existence of a law enacted by the State Legislature is a prerequisite for the operation of the embargo under Article 243-O. This means that courts are barred from exercising jurisdiction over election disputes if a valid law provides a complete and efficacious remedy for redressal (!) (!) .
-
While judicial review remains a fundamental power, it is constrained by the non-obstante clause in Article 243-O(b). Courts cannot interfere in election matters related to Panchayats where a law providing for such elections exists, except through the statutory remedy of an election petition (!) (!) .
-
The statutory remedy for grievances concerning election nominations or disqualifications is specific and must be strictly followed. In this case, the statutory provisions specify that disputes regarding the rejection of nominations must be addressed through the prescribed authority and procedure, not through judicial intervention under Article 226 (!) (!) .
-
Interference by courts at interim stages, especially when the election process has already been set in motion and a final outcome has been reached, is inappropriate. The election process, once finalized, should not be disturbed unless there is a violation of statutory procedures, which must be addressed through the prescribed statutory remedies (!) (!) .
-
The High Court's intervention in this case was found to be in error because it disregarded the constitutional and statutory framework that channels election disputes through specific mechanisms, and it interfered with an election that had already been finalized and declared, thereby violating the legal protections granted to the process (!) (!) .
-
The decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity and smooth conduct of elections by adhering to the statutory processes and discourages judicial interference based on individual grievances that are subject to statutory remedies (!) (!) .
-
Consequently, the interim order issued by the High Court, which stayed the election process and directed the allotment of a symbol to a candidate, was set aside. The appellate decision reaffirmed that the election process should proceed in accordance with law, and any grievances should be addressed through the statutory election petition mechanism (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the primacy of statutory mechanisms and the constitutional protections that limit judicial interference in electoral processes for Panchayats.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contended that Article 243-O does not bar judicial intervention for illegal nomination rejection, while the respondent argued that election petitions act as the exclusive remedy. (Para 8 )
3. The Court emphasized that Article 243-O creates a constitutional bar on judicial interference in ongoing election processes, mandating that such disputes be resolved only through post-election petitions. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to interdict an ongoing election process where a specific statutory remedial framework for election disputes exists. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 )
5. The High Court's interim order is set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed, affirming the primacy of the statutory election petition process. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to challenge the rejection of a nomination in an ongoing Panchayat election?
No. Under Article 243-O of the Constitution and relevant State specific enactments, the High Court is barred from interfering with the election process. Grievances regarding nomination rejection must be adjudicated through a specific election petition filed after the election concludes. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 )
7. Does the existence of a statutory election petition remedy bar a petitioner from approaching the High Court under Article 226 during elections?
Yes. The presence of a self-contained statutory mechanism for election disputes operates as an effective alternative remedy, mandating the High Court to exercise judicial restraint and decline entertainment of such petitions while the election process is underway. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 )
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the interim order dated 18th July, 2025, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital1[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025, whereby the High Court stayed the operation of the judgment dated 11th July, 2025, rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2083 of 2025 and further directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) and permit him to participate in the election to the office of Zila Panchayat Member.
3. The brief facts, in a nutshell, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows
3.1. The Uttarakhand State Election Commission issued a revised notification dated 28th June, 2026, thereby resuming the Panchayat elections in twelve districts of the State. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 1 submitted his nomination for election to the post of Zila Panchayat Member from Constituency No. 11- Bharhgaon, District Pithoragarh.
3.2. Subsequently, the appellant raised an objection alleging failure on the part of respondent No. 1 to make the requisite disclosures. Upon consideration thereof, the Returning Officer, vide order dated 9th July, 2025, cancelled the candidature of respondent No. 1.
3.3. Aggrieved by the said action, respondent No. 1 approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition (MS) No. 2083 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 11th July, 2025, dismissed the writ petition, observing that in view of the election process having already been set in motion, the writ petition was not liable to be entertained at that stage. On the very same date, namely 11th July, 2025, the present appellant was declared elected unopposed to the office of Zila Panchayat Member, the remaining two candidates, including respondent No. 1, having been declared disqualified by the Election Officer.
3.4. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 preferred an intra- court appeal, being Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025, without impleading the present appellant as a party. The learned Division Bench, vide the impugned interim order, stayed the operation of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge and directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) and to permit him to participate in the election to the office of Zila Panchayat Member.
4. Therefore, the appellant is before this Court.
5. This Court, vide order dated 23rd July, 2025, issued notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of the interim order dated 18th July, 2025, passed by the High Court. It was further clarified that the election process would continue in accordance with law, and that the result thereof would remain subject to the final outcome of the present appeal.
6. Finally, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 12th January, 2026, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, who had earlier entered appearance, was not present. As per the office report, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were reported to be unserved. However, since the said respondents are only pro-forma parties, we proceeded to hear learned counsel appearing for the appellant and reserved judgment on the same day.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have carefully perused the material available on record.
8. At the outset, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court and, for the reasons that shall be delineated hereinafter, are inclined to set aside the same.
8.1. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition instituted by respondent No. 1, assigned the following reasons -
a. That Article 243-O of the Constitution of India2[Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”] contains an express bar, stipulating that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by way of an election petition, to be governed by the law enacted by the Legislature of the concer
