1. Election petition challenging rejection of nomination for office of Block Pramukh under OBC (Woman) category. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 532
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Munni Devi – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 34527 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bal Mukund Singh, Bharat Singh Pal, Shivangi Tripathi, Shri Prakash Mishra.
For the Respondents: Narendra Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., Nisheeth Yadav, Pardeep Kumar, Prakhar Saran Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Tarun Agrawal.
For the Petitioner: Bal Mukund Singh, Bharat Singh Pal, Shivangi Tripathi, Shri Prakash Mishra.
For the Respondents: Narendra Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., Nisheeth Yadav, Pardeep Kumar, Prakhar Saran Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Tarun Agrawal.
An election petition is maintainable against the improper rejection of a nomination as the 1994 Rules provide broad grounds for challenge. Furthermore, nominations cannot be rejected for non-substantial technical defects, such as the non-self-attestation of photographs, under Rule 11(4).
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 243-O - Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 - Rules 11, 35, 36 and 37 - Maintainability of election petition - The phrase "ground or grounds" used in Rule 36 is of wide amplitude and not restrictive to the grounds of disqualification specified in the parent Act - An election petition calling in question the election of a returned candidate is maintainable on the ground of improper rejection of a nomination paper. (Paras 30 and 36)
(B) Election Law - Scrutiny of nominations - Technical defects - Under Rule 11(4) of the 1994 Rules, a returning officer shall not reject a nomination paper on the ground of any technical defect or error which is not of a substantial character - Non-self-attestation of photographs appended to a nomination form by the candidate, proposer, and seconder constitutes a technical defect and not a substantial ground for the extreme act of rejecting a nomination. (Paras 45 and 47)
Facts of the case:
In an election for the office of Block Pramukh, the nomination of a candidate was rejected on the ground that the photographs in the nomination form were not self-attested by the candidate, the proposer, and the seconder. The rejected candidate filed an election petition, and the Election Tribunal subsequently declared the election of the returned candidate null and void. The returned candidate challenged this order via a writ petition, arguing that the election petition was not maintainable and that the rejection of the nomination was legally correct based on State Election Commission directives.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Election Tribunal failed to consider specific documents—including a communication from the Assistant Election Officer and written arguments from the State—which indicated that the rejected candidate had been given an opportunity to rectify the attestation defect but failed to do so. Furthermore, the court noted that the rejection of a nomination solely for non-attestation of photographs is disproportionate for a non-substantial technical error.
Issues: 1. Whether an election petition challenging the rejection of a nomination is maintainable under the 1994 Rules. 2. Whether the rejection of a nomination due to a lack of self-attestation of photographs is legally sustainable under the rules governing technical defects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules does not specify or limit the grounds for an election petition, the broad terminology allows for challenges based on improper rejection of nominations. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 11(4), nominations should not be rejected for defects of a non-substantial nature. However, for a fair adjudication, the Tribunal must consider all available evidence regarding whether the candidate was afforded a reasonable opportunity to correct such defects.
Result: Writ petition partly allowed. The order of the Election Tribunal is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order within two months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of election petition challenging nomination rejection and whether non-attestation of photograph was a curable defect. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. Election petition maintainable as Rules do not restrict grounds; improper rejection of nomination can be challenged. Matter remitted for consideration of crucial documents. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
4. Election petition maintainable against improper rejection of nomination where Rules do not enumerate specific grounds but use broad expression 'ground or grounds'. (Para 30 , 31 , 36 )
5. Writ petition partly allowed. Impugned order set aside. Matter remitted to Election Tribunal for fresh consideration within two months. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 )
6. Is an election petition maintainable against rejection of nomination for the office of Block Pramukh under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994?
Yes. Since Rules 35, 36, and 37 do not enumerate specific grounds but employ the broad expression 'ground or grounds', rejection of nomination is a permissible ground. (Para 27 , 30 , 31 , 36 )
7. What is the effect of the Returning Officer's failure to consider a written argument submitted by the State before the Election Tribunal?
Failure to consider crucial documents that go to the root of the matter, such as a written argument stating opportunity was given to rectify a defect, requires the matter to be remitted for fresh consideration. (Para 44 , 48 , 49 )
8. Can a nomination paper be rejected solely for non-attestation of a photograph when no specific provision mandates such rejection?
Non-attestation of a photograph on the nomination form, absent a specific statutory mandate for rejection, cannot be the sole ground for rejection, especially as it may be a curable technical defect. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 )
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri K.R. Singh along with Sri Bharat Singh Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the Election Commission and Shri N.K. Pandey, counsel for the respondent no. 6.
2. The counsel(s) for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits and the writ petition is being decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
FACTS
3. The facts of the case as worded in the petition are that the State of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of powers as conferred therein decided to fill up the office of Block Pramuk throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh including Block Pramuk of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur which was earmarked under OBC (Woman) reservation category. The date of the nomination of the candidates for election to the office of Pramukh was 08.07.2021 and nomination could be withdrawn by 09.07.2021 and the date of the election for the office of Pramukh was scheduled on 10.07.2021. As per the writ petitioner/ Munni Devi filed objections (Paper No. 25C/13) against the nomination of Smt. Babli w/o Mem Singh, sixth respondent on the ground that her name stands recorded in Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly-25 at Haridwar and Lok Sabha-5 Haridwar at Serial No. 142, Aryanagar, Jwalapur, U. Bhawan, K.N.-1 and Serial No. 781, Shivalik Shishu Junior High School, Aryanagar, Uttari Bhawan, Tehsil Haridwar. Since the name of the sixth respondent found place at both the places i.e. Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh and Haridwar, Uttarakhand, thus, her name be deleted from one place to contest election to the other place. Then after scrutiny of the nomination's papers, the nomination of the 6th respondent, (Smt. Babli W/O Mem Singh) and Kavita W/O Vikash Kumar resident of Village Dabkaula was rejected due to non-compliance of condition No. 6(A) of the Directive issued by State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow vide Letter No. 4169/ Ra. Ni. Aa.-3/P.Ni./53-21/2021 dated 25.07.2021.
4. It is also the case of the petitioner, that due to the rejection of the nomination of the 6th respondent and Smt. Suman, they raised objection that their nomination paper cannot be rejected. Assistant Returning Officer/ District Cane Officer, Saharanpur, thereafter wrote a letter dated 09.07.2021 to District Election Officer, Saharanpur, apprising all the factual and the legal position and found that the objections of the 6th respondent and Smt. Kavita had no force. The elections were conducted on 10.07.2021 and the petitioner is claimed to be elected unopposed for the office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, District, Saharanpur, under OBC (Women) Reservation Category.
5. The same led to filing of an election petition by Smt. Babli, 6th respondent, before the District Judge/ Election, Tribunal, Saharanpur, which was numbered as Election Petition No. 217 of 2021 (Smt. Babli v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 others), seeking relief to the extent that election for the office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, District Saharanpur be declared void, and an appropriate directions be issued in that regard against the defendants in the election petition.
6. On being noticed, the present petitioner filed his written statement and reply was also filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 being the State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Collector, Saharanpur, Collectorate, Saharanpur and the Election Officer, DCO/ Deputy Cane Commissioner, Saharanpur.
7. Vide order dated 03.07.2022, the District Judge/ Election Tribunal, Saharanpur framed two issues, namely, (a) whether on the basis of the averments made in the election petition, the uncontested election of the Opposite Party No. 4 (writ petitioner) and such declaration order dated 10.7.2021 issued by Opposite Party No.
