The six-year disqualification period under Section 146(2) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act for failing to disclose criminal antecedents is not disproportionate or arbitrary, as it ensures electoral integrity and prevents candidates who have breached disclosure requirements from participating in the immediate subsequent election cycle.

Petitioner, by invoking jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has filed present petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3.2.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi under Section 146 (2) of the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereby petitioner has been disqualified from contesting the election for a period of 6 years and to be elected as office bearer of the Panchayat etc.; and also for declaring Section 146 (2) of the Panchayati Raj Act as ultra vires to the Constitution of India being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2 Admitted facts are that petitioner was elected as Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Pangna, District Mandi in Panchayati Raj Institutions’ elections held in November/December,2020. The said election was assailed by respondent No.4 by filing Election Petition on various grounds including that despite being well aware about pendency of Criminal Case No. 38 of 2018 titled as State of HP vs. Shanta Devi against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, in case FIR No. 114 of 2017, petitioner did not disclose this information in his Nomination Form on 17.2.2021. The Election Petition was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Karsog on 25.4.2022 declaring election of petitioner as Pardhan, Gram Panchayat Pangna as null and void with finding that in his Nomination Form, petitioner had deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents especially information about pending criminal case against him involving punishment of 2 years imprisonment which attracted the provisions of Section 175 (1((d)(iii) of the Act and willful concealment of information by the petitioner attracted his disqualification under the provisions of the Section 122 (1)(n) of he Act providing disqualification of the candidate from contesting the future elections for making false declaration.

3 Appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide order dated 1.5.2023.

4 CWP No. 2854 of 2023 preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against aforesaid orders and declaration, was dismissed by Single Bench on 16.10.2024.

5 LPA No. 361 of 2024 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7.11.2024.

6 Vide impugned order dated 3.2.2025, Deputy Commissioner, Mandi by invoking provisions of Section 146 (1)(a) and 146(2) read with Section 131 (2) of the Act had disqualified the petitioner from being elected or continuing as office bearer of Panchayat for 6 years and had declared the post of Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Pangna as vacant.

7 The petitioner approached the Apex Court by filing SLP(C ) Dairy No. 1062 of 2025 wherein petitioner had also raised the issue of passing of order dated 3.2.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner declaring him disqualified for 6 years with submission that it was harsh and disproportionate to the nature of non-declaration of the particulars. The Apex Court did not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.

8 With respect to plea of petitioner that punishment imposed is harsh and disproportionate punishment, particularly keeping in view the nature of allegation attributed to him, the Apex Court had observed that prima facie it seem to be harsh and disproportionate punishment, however, issue was left open to be decided by the High Court if petitioner, so advised to assail the order before the High Court.

9 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that disqualification from contesting the elections for 6 years for non-disclosure of pendency of criminal case, wherein petitioner also stands acquitted later on, is not only harsh and disproportionate but also ultra vires to the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further that Section 146 (2) providing no discretion to the concerned competent Authority to impose proportionate punishment depending upo