Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2090
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
G. Narendar, CJ, Alok Mahra, J
Akash Bora – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Public Interest Litigation No. 131 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tajhar Qayyum
For the Respondents: J.C. Pande, Sanjay Bhatt
The court upheld the authority of the State Election Commission to manage the electoral rolls, emphasizing the need for petitioners to seek resolution through election petitions when challenging electoral processes.
Headnote:(A) Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 - Section 9 - Writ petition challenging the eligibility of individuals to vote in the Panchayat elections based on fraudulent entries in the electoral roll - Action initiated by State Election Commission resulting in removal of ineligible names - Court permits petitioner to seek remedy before Election Tribunal. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Election petitions - The petitioner’s avenue for challenging election outcomes as per law, highlighting the scope of judicial review in electoral matters. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the inclusion of certain names in the voter list for elections, alleging fraudulent entries. The State Election Commission's actions led to the deletion of ineligible voters.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the actions taken by the Election Commission render judicial review unnecessary at this stage, allowing the petitioner to seek redress through the appropriate Election Tribunal.
Issues: The main issues included whether the electoral rolls were prepared lawfully and the impact of this on upcoming elections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Election Commission had acted appropriately, and the petitioner retains the right to approach the Election Tribunal for rectification if needed.
Result: The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. state election commission actions (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. compliance affidavit and role of state government (Para 5) |
| 3. opportunity to challenge at election tribunal (Para 6) |
| 4. disposal of writ petition with implications for future action (Para 7 , 8) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Public Interest Litigation No. 131 of 2025
1st August, 2025 Akash Bora ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ...…….Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for State Election Commission/respondent nos. 4 & 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred praying for the following reliefs:
“1. Direct an impartial and independent committee to conduct a fair inquiry, before 24.07.2025, into the role of Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 (VDO, BLO, and Respondent No.7) in making fraudulent entries using fabricated documents, and into the involvement and eligibility of the 52 individuals to vote in the upcoming Panchayat election of the 52 individuals to vote in the upcoming Panchayat elections of Gram Panchayat Dudhlakot whose names were allegedly included illegally in the voter list.
2. Order to allow voting of these 52 individuals in the upcoming elections of gram panchayat Budhlakot if it is found by the independent committee that they are eligible to vote as per Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act and Constitution of India.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to delete the 52 fraudulently included names from the voter list of Gram Sabha Budhlakot after due enquiry and providing them opportunity of hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act , 2016.”
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission submits that, pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, action has been initiated and the Village Development Officer has been placed under suspension, and the names of such individuals, who were found not ordinarily residing in the Village, have also been deleted from the electoral roll.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that some of the persons, whose names have been pointed out by the petitioner in the petition and arrayed as respondents, have already cast their votesin the elections that were held on 24.07.2025.
5. The Chief Secretary has filed compliance affidavit placing on record the stand of the State Government and the relevant portions of the affidavit reads as under:
“4. That in accordance with Section 9 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act , 2016, the electoral roll for each constituency of the Gram Panchayat shall be prepared under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission. Further as per Section 9 (10), if the Act and Rules do not provide for a matter concerning electoral roll, then the State Election Commission may, by order, make provisions in respect of the same.
5. Accordingly, the State Election Commission vide notification no.1015 dated 05.10.2024, issued direction for a detailed revision of the Panchayat Electoral rolls of all the districts of Uttarakhand (except Haridwar district), as per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Electoral Registration) Rules, 1994. In this connection, copy of the notification dated 05.10.2024 issued by the State Election Commission is being marked and annexed as (Annexure No.1) to the affidavit.
6. That it is respectfully submitted that for the purpose of revising or preparing the electoral roll of a constituency, reliance is to be placed upon the p
