![Article 243-O Bars Writ Petitions in Panchayat Polls, Rejected Nomination Only by Election Petition: Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa [2026 INSC 105]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: Where a State law provides for an election petition, a High Court cannot use its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with an ongoing Panchayat election because a nomination was rejected; Article 243-O channels such grievances into an election petition. The Supreme Court set aside an Uttarakhand High Court interim order that had directed a symbol to be allotted to a candidate whose nomination was rejected, after the appellant had already been declared elected unopposed.
In Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors. (2026 INSC 105), the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction by staying the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition against rejection of a nomination and directing the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to the rejected candidate, since Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution and Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 make an election petition the remedy (paras 9–11). A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also faulted the High Court for passing the order without hearing the appellant, who had already been declared elected unopposed (para 11).
Status: High Court's interim order dated 18.07.2025 in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 set aside; the writ appeal dismissed; Civil Appeal allowed (paras 13–14).
Headnote: Writ Jurisdiction in Panchayat Elections
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 243-O – Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 – Sections 90 and 131H – Panchayat elections – Zila Panchayat Member – Rejection of nomination – Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters – Election petition as exclusive remedy – Interim relief in election matters – Order without hearing returned candidate.
Held: (i) Article 243-O(b) makes it clear that no election to any Panchayat can be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as the State Legislature provides (para 9.2).
(ii) Where a specific statutory remedy by election petition is available, the High Court must exercise great circumspection and restraint in invoking Article 226; the non-obstante opening of Article 243-O reinforces this (para 9.3).
(iii) Article 243-O does not abrogate judicial review; it channels review through a statutorily prescribed and efficacious mechanism, namely an election petition before the authority designated by State law (para 9.4).
(iv) Section 131H(1)(b) of the Panchayati Raj Act covers an election materially affected by improper rejection of a nomination; a candidate who complains of a statutory infraction by the Election Officer must use the remedy under the same statute (paras 10.2–10.3).
(v) Following Laxmibai v. Collector and N.P. Ponnuswami, the sole remedy against rejection of a nomination is an election petition after the election, and the High Court lacks Article 226 jurisdiction in the interregnum (para 10.5).
(vi) The election process cannot be lightly interdicted at the behest of an individual grievance, and High Courts must eschew liberal interim reliefs in favour of individuals (para 12).
(paras 9–12)
Case Details: Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa (2026 INSC 105)
Final Outcome: Civil Appeal allowed; High Court's interim order set aside and the writ appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
Case: Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 105
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 20241 of 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 2 February 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath (author) and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Relevant Acts & Sections: Constitution of India – Articles 40, 226 and 243-O (Part IX, inserted by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992); Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 – Sections 90 and 131H
Impugned Order: Interim order dated 18.07.2025 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025, staying the Single Judge's judgment dated 11.07.2025 in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2083 of 2025 (paras 2, 3.4)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The Division Bench transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction in interfering with the electoral process, in disregard of settled law (para 9).
- As Uttarakhand has enacted the Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, the bar under Article 243-O stands attracted, and a grievance against rejection of a nomination lies within that Act (para 10).
- A candidate cannot seek enforcement of the Act against election authorities while bypassing the remedy the same Act prescribes (para 10.3).
- The High Court erred on three counts: acting against Article 243-O, issuing directions contrary to a process that had attained finality, and staying the Single Judge's order without hearing the elected appellant (para 11).
- Where a State law provides an election petition, the High Court is precluded from exercising Article 226 jurisdiction over grievances arising during the election, and the exclusive remedy for individual grievances is an election petition (para 12).
Brief Facts of the Case
The Uttarakhand State Election Commission issued a revised notification resuming Panchayat elections in twelve districts. Respondent No. 1 filed his nomination for Zila Panchayat Member from Constituency No. 11, District Pithoragarh. On the appellant's objection alleging failure to make requisite disclosures, the Returning Officer cancelled respondent No. 1's candidature on 09.07.2025 (paras 3.1–3.2).
The Single Judge dismissed respondent No. 1's writ petition on 11.07.2025, citing the bar under Article 243-O and the alternative remedy of an election petition under Section 131H. On the same day, the appellant was declared elected unopposed, the other two candidates, including respondent No. 1, having been declared disqualified (paras 3.3, 8.1).
In an intra-court appeal filed without impleading the appellant, the Division Bench on 18.07.2025 stayed the Single Judge's judgment and directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 and permit him to contest, holding that Article 243-O did not apply to a challenge to rejection of a nomination and that non-disclosure of an acquittal in a prior criminal case was not a disqualification under Section 90 (paras 3.4, 8.2).
On 23.07.2025 the Supreme Court stayed the interim order, directing that the election process continue subject to the outcome of the appeal. Counsel for respondent No. 1 did not appear at the final hearing on 12.01.2026 (paras 5–6).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court could, under Article 226, interfere with a Panchayat election on a challenge to rejection of a nomination, despite Article 243-O (paras 9–9.4).
- Whether Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act provided the appropriate remedy for respondent No. 1's grievance (paras 10–10.5).
- Whether the Division Bench's interim directions were sustainable when the appellant had already been declared elected unopposed and was not heard (para 11).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Constitutional status of Panchayats (paras 9–9.1): Part IX was inserted by the 73rd Amendment to give effect to Article 40, raising Panchayati Raj institutions to a constitutionally enforceable framework while leaving the States latitude to structure them.
Bar under Article 243-O (paras 9.2–9.4): Relying on Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, the Court held that all Panchayat election disputes must ordinarily be decided by election petition. A law made by the State Legislature is a condition precedent for the embargo, which channels judicial review into an election petition rather than abolishing it.
Remedy under Section 131H (paras 10–10.4): Uttarakhand has enacted the Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, so the bar applies. Section 131H(1)(b)(i) covers an election materially affected by improper rejection of a nomination, and Section 131H(6) names the prescribed authority as an Assistant Collector (First Class) or Pargana Magistrate, with revision to the District Judge. Given this complete framework, the Court could not concur with the "undue haste" of the Division Bench.
No writ in the interregnum (para 10.5): Laxmibai v. Collector, approving N.P. Ponnuswami, holds that rejection of a nomination can be questioned only by an election petition after the election, at no other stage and before no other forum.
Three errors of the High Court (para 11): The High Court acted against Article 243-O; its directions ran contrary to a process that had attained finality with the appellant's unopposed election; and it stayed the Single Judge's order without hearing the appellant, who was directly and adversely affected.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Interim order dated 18.07.2025 in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025 set aside, and the writ appeal dismissed (para 13).
- Civil Appeal allowed (para 14).
- Pending applications, if any, disposed of (para 15).
Legal Principle Laid Down
By virtue of Article 243-O, a High Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 where a law enacted by the State Legislature provides for an election petition to redress grievances arising during a Panchayat election. The right to contest or question an election is statutory and must be exercised in accordance with the governing statute; courts must avoid liberal interim relief to individuals and keep in view the public interest in smooth conduct of elections (para 12).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 383 – Relied upon – Article 243-O mandates that election disputes be decided by election petition; writ jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised. Discussed at para 9.3.
- C. Subrahmanyam, (1998) 8 SCC 703 – Referred to (as quoted in Harnek Singh) – writ not to be entertained where the main question is a ground for an election petition. Discussed at para 9.3.
- Laxmibai v. Collector, (2020) 12 SCC 186 – Relied upon – three-Judge Bench; rejection of nomination can be challenged only by election petition after the election. Discussed at para 10.5.
- N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 9 – Relied upon – no Article 226 jurisdiction during the election process. Discussed at para 10.5.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 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."
Para 9.4: "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."
Para 10.3: "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."
Para 11: "The High Court, therefore, committed a manifest error in interfering in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction on three counts."
Para 12: "The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance."
Para 12: "In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For candidates: A rejected nomination must be challenged by an election petition under the State Panchayat law, not by a writ petition mid-election (paras 10.3, 10.5, 12).
- For returned candidates: An order affecting an already declared result cannot be passed without hearing the elected candidate (para 11).
- For High Courts: Liberal interim relief that stalls an election at an individual's instance is to be avoided, in the public interest of uninterrupted elections (para 12).
- For election authorities: Panchayat election processes in Uttarakhand are protected by Article 243-O read with Section 131H of the 2016 Act (paras 10, 12).
FAQs on Writ Petitions in Panchayat Elections
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa?
It set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's interim order directing a symbol to be allotted to a candidate whose nomination was rejected, and dismissed the writ appeal (paras 13–14).
2. Can a rejected Panchayat candidate file a writ petition during the election?
No, where the State law provides an election petition. Article 243-O bars such interference, and the remedy is an election petition after the election (paras 10.5, 12).
3. Which provision gives the remedy in Uttarakhand?
Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which covers improper rejection of a nomination and provides for an application to the prescribed authority and revision to the District Judge (paras 10–10.4).
4. Does Article 243-O take away judicial review?
No. It channels judicial review through an election petition before the authority designated by State law (para 9.4).
5. Why else was the High Court's order wrong?
It was passed in an appeal in which the appellant, already declared elected unopposed, was not impleaded or heard (paras 3.4, 11).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 105, Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa, Article 243-O, Article 226, Panchayat election, Zila Panchayat Member, rejection of nomination, election petition, Section 131H Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act 2016, Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, Laxmibai v. Collector, N.P. Ponnuswami, interim relief in elections, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).