2026 INSC 105 C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 1 of 15

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO……………………….OF 202 6

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.20241 OF 2025)

SANDEEP SINGH BORA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

NARENDRA SINGH DEOPA

& ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the interim order

dated 18

th July, 2025, passed by High Court of

Uttarakhand at Nainital

1 in Special Appeal No. 192 of

2025, whereby the High Court stayed the operation of

the judgment dated 11

th 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.

1

Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 2 of 15

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 28

th 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 9

th 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 11

th 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 11

th July, 2025, the present appellant was

declared elected unopposed to the office of Zila

Panchayat Member, the remain ing two candidates,

including respondent No. 1, having been declared

disqualified by the Election Officer.

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 3 of 15

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 23

rd July, 2025, issued

notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of the

interim order dated 18

th 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

12

th 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.

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 4 of 15

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 India

2

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 concerned State.

b. That Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj

Act, 2016

3 provides an efficacious alternative remedy

by way of an election petition in cases of improper

rejection of nomination, and therefore, at that stage,

the writ petition before the High Court was not

maintainable.

8.2. In the intra-court appeal preferred by respondent No. 1,

the Division Bench, by the impugned interim order,

stayed the operation of the order dated 11

th July, 2025,

passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the

2

Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.

3

Hereinafter, referred to as “Panchayati Raj Act”.

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 5 of 15

Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1

(the writ petitioner therein) and permit him to participate

in the election process for the office of Zila Panchayat

Member. In arriving at this conclusion, the Division

Bench assigned the following reasons: -

a. That the bar contained in Article 243 -O of the

Constitution was held to be inapplicable to the present

case, as the challenge was not directed against the

election of any candidate, but was confined to the

alleged illegal rejection of the nomination of

respondent No. 1, for which, according to the Division

Bench, no efficacious alternative remedy was

available.

b. That Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act enumerates

the circumstances and grounds attracting

disqualification for the office of Zila Panchayat

Member, and in the facts of the present case, the

alleged non-disclosure of an acquittal in a prior

criminal case did not fall within any of the

disqualifications so specified.

9. In our considered view, the Division Bench transgressed

the limits of its jurisdiction in interfering with the

electoral process, in disregard of the settled position of

law. The election jurisprudence in this country has

undergone a significant evolution. With a view to

maintaining a delicate balance between decisions

rendered by statutory authorities and judicial

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 6 of 15

intervention by way of judicial review, a stage was

reached where Parliament considered it appropriate to

accord constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj

institutions.

9.1. Accordingly, Part IX, titled “The Panchayats”, was

inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (73

rd

Amendment) Act, 1992. The said constitutional

amendment gives effect to Article 40 of the Directive

Principles of State Policy, which enjoins the State to take

steps to organise village panchayats and to endow them

with such powers and authority as may be necessary to

enable them to function as units of self-government. By

virtue of this amendment, the Panchayati Raj

institutions were elevated from a non-justiciable to a

constitutionally enforceable framework. At the same

time, the States were accorded sufficient latitude to

structure and implement the Panchayati Raj system

having due regard to their distinct geographical,

political, administrative and other local conditions.

9.2. Article 243-O of the Constitution, introduced by the

aforesaid constitutional amendment, places an express

embargo on judicial interference in matters relating to

elections to the Panchayats. The provision reads as

follows: -

243O. Bar to interference by courts in

electoral matters.– Notwithstanding anything in

this Constitution–

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 7 of 15

(a) the validity of any law relating to the

delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of

seats to such constituencies, made or purporting

to be made under article 243K, shall not be called

in question in any court;

(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called

in question except by an election petition

presented to such authority and in such

manner as is provided for by or under any law

made by the Legislature of a State.

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution makes it

abundantly clear that no election to any Panchayat can

be called in question except by way of an election petition

presented to such authority and in such manner as may

be provided by the State Legislature.

9.3. This Court, in Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh ,

4

while examining the object and purpose underlying the

incorporation of the bar contained in Article 243-O of the

Constitution, also considered the said provision in

juxtaposition with the plenary jurisdiction of the High

Courts under Article 226. The Court observed as follows:

“15. Prayers (b) and (c) aforementioned,

evidently, could not have been granted in favour

of the petitioner by the High Court in exercise of

its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution. It is true that the High Court

exercises a plenary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution. Such jurisdiction

being discretionary in nature may not be

exercised inter alia keeping in view the fact

that an efficacious alternative remedy is

available therefor . (See Sanjana M.

4

(2005) 8 SCC 383

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 8 of 15

Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 8

SCC 242 : (2005) 7 Scale 290] )

16. Article 243-O of the Constitution

mandates that all election disputes must be

determined only by way of an election

petition. This by itself may not per se bar

judicial review which is the basic structure of

the Constitution, but ordinarily such

jurisdiction would not be exercised. There may

be some cases where a writ petition would be

entertained but in this case we are not concerned

with the said question.

17. In C. Subrahmanyam [(1998) 8 SCC 703] a

three-Judge Bench of this Court observed that

a writ petition should not be entertained when

the main question which fell for decision

before the High Court was non -compliance

with the provisions of the Act which was one

of the grounds for an election petition in

terms of Rule 12 framed under the Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is evident that where a specific statutory

remedy is available by way of an election petition, the

High Court must exercise great circumspection and

restraint in invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution. The need for such judicial restraint is

further reinforced by the non-obstante clause with

which Article 243-O opens, namely, the expression

“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”.

9.4. Article 243-O(b), thus, places a bar on the exercise of

jurisdiction by Courts under the Constitution in matters

relating to elections to Panchayats, where a law has been

enacted by the Legislature of a State providing for such

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 9 of 15

elections. The existence of a law made by the State

Legislature is a condition precedent for the operation of

the embargo contemplated under Article 243 -O. The

provision does not abrogate the sacrosanct power of

judicial review, which forms part of the basic structure

of the Constitution; rather, it channels such review

through a statutorily prescribed and efficacious

mechanism, namely, an election petition to be presented

before the authority designated under the law enacted

by the State Legislature for that purpose.

10. In the present case, the State of Uttarakhand has

enacted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

Consequently, the bar envisaged under Article 243-O of

the Constitution stands attracted. Therefore, if

respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the order dated 9

th

July, 2025, passed by the Election Officer rejecting his

nomination, the appropriate remedy lay within the

framework of the Panchayati Raj Act itself. At this stage,

it would be apposite to advert to Section 131H of the

Panchayati Raj Act, being the statutory provision which

directly governs the issue at hand. The said provision is

reproduced hereinbelow: -

“131H. Application regarding election and

their revision.– (1) The election of a person as

Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or as member of a

Gram Panchayat shall not be called in

question except by an application presented

to such authority within such time and in

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 10 of 15

such manner as may be prescribed , on the

ground:-

(a) that this election has not been free election by

reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or

undue influence has extensively prevailed at the

election; or

(b) that the result of the election has been

materially affected-

(i) by the acceptance or rejection of any

nomination in improper manner ; or

(ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions

of this Act or the rules framed there under.

(2) . . .

(3) The application under sub-section (1) may be

presented by any candidate at the election or any

elector and shall contain such particulars as may

be prescribed;

Explanation:- Any person, who filed a

nomination paper at the election whether such

nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall

be deemed to be a candidate at the election.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the

powers to be prescribed under sub-section (4) the

rules may be provided for summarily hearing and

disposal of an application under subsection (1).

(6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the

prescribed authority who shall be Assistant

Collector (first class)/ Pargana Magistrate of

concerned Tehsil/ Pargana upon an

application under subsection (1) may, within

thirty days from the date of the order, apply

to the District Judge for revision of such order

or any one or more on the following grounds;

namely: -

(a) that the prescribed authority has exercised

such jurisdiction not vested in it by law;

(b) that the prescribed authority has failed to

exercise a such jurisdiction so vested;

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 11 of 15

(c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the

exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with

material irregularity.

(7) The District Judge may dispose of the

application for revision himself or may assign it

for disposal to any Additional District Judge, Civil

Judge or Additional Civil Judge under his

administrative control and may recall it from any

such officer or transfer it to any other such

officer.”

(emphasis supplied)

10.1. Section 131H specifically governs disputes relating to

the election of a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a Member of a

Gram Panchayat. The provision, being couched in

negative terms, warrants heightened judicial

circumspection while entertaining proceedings contrary

to its mandate. It expressly stipulates that no election

shall be called in question except by an application

presented before the prescribed authority, within such

time and in such manner as may be laid down.

10.2. Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 131H of the Panchayati Raj

Act contemplates a situation where the result of an

election has been materially affected by the improper

acceptance or rejection of a nomination. It is the specific

case of respondent No. 1 in the writ petition that the

Election Officer rejected his candidature on a ground

which, according to him, is not contemplated under

Section 90 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the provision which

enumerates the disqualifications for membership of a

Zila Panchayat.

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 12 of 15

10.3. Therefore, if, according to respondent No. 1, there was

a specific infraction of the statutory provisions by the

Election Officer, the remedy availed by him was also

required to be in consonance with the scheme of the very

statute. It would thus not be permissible for respondent

No. 1 to seek enforcement of compliance with the

provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act by the authorities

conducting the election, while at the same time electing

to bypass the statutorily prescribed remedy available

under the said enactment.

10.4. Sub-section (6) of Section 131H of the Panchayati Raj

Act explicitly stipulates that the prescribed authority

before whom an election petition is to be presented shall

be an Assistant Collector (First Class) or a Pargana

Magistrate. In view of the comprehe nsive statutory

framework providing both the forum and the procedure

for redressal of grievances arising out of non-compliance

with the provisions of the Act, we find ourselves unable

to concur with the undue haste with which the Division

Bench proceeded to deal with the matter at hand.

10.5. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Laxmibai v.

Collector,

5

cited with approval the decision in N.P.

Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal

Constituency,

6 wherein it was held that in cases of

rejection of a nomination, the sole remedy available is by

way of an election petition to be presented after the

5

(2020) 12 SCC 186

6

(1952) 1 SCC 9

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 13 of 15

conclusion of the election process, and that even the

High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution during the interregnum. The Court

categorically observed that the ground of rejection of a

nomination paper cannot be agitated in any other

manner, at any other stage, or before any other forum.

11. In the present case, the appellant had already been

declared elected unopposed on 11

th July, 2025 since the

remaining two candidates, including respondent No. 1,

had been declared disqualified by the competent

authorities. The High Court, therefore, committed a

manifest error in interfering in exercise of its

extraordinary jurisdiction on three counts. First, the

High Court acted in the teeth of the constitutional

embargo contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution.

Second, by directing the Returning Officer to allot a

symbol to respondent No. 1 and permitting him to

participate in the election process, the High Court issued

directions contrary to a process which had already

attained finality with the appellant having been declared

elected unopposed. Lastly, the High Court proceeded to

stay the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the

writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, without affording

an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who stood

directly and adversely affected by such directions,

having already been elected to the post in question.

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 14 of 15

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we summarise our

conclusions as under: -

I. By virtue of the express constitutional embargo

contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India,

the High Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution where a law

enacted by the State Legislature provides for the remedy

of an election petition to redress grievances arising

during the course of an election.

II. The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or

stalled at the behest of an individual grievance. The right

to contest or question an election being statutory in

nature, must be strictly construed and exercised in

accordance with the statute governing the field. The High

Court must, therefore, eschew the grant of liberal

interim reliefs in favour of individuals and instead

remain mindful of the overarching public interest in

ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of

elections across the State.

III. In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and

exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition.

Given the non-obstante nature of Article 243-O of the

Constitution, its mandate is required to be adhered to in

both letter and spirit. Where the statute provides a

complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, the

extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution would defeat the very object for which

Article 243-O was enacted as a non-obstante provision.

C.A…../2025@SLP(C) NO.20241/2025 Page 15 of 15

13. Accordingly, the interim order dated 18

th July, 2025,

passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in

Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 is set aside, and the writ

appeal stands dismissed.

14. Consequently, the present appeal stands allowed.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………….J.

[VIKRAM NATH ]

……………………………………….J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA ]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 02, 2026