Uttarakhand HC Refuses To Vacate Stay On SEC Decision Allowing Candidates In Multiple Voter Rolls To Contest Panchayat Polls

The SEC had approached the Court seeking modification or vacation of the stay order, contending that the ongoing electoral process was being adversely affected due to the absence of clarity on whether the process could move forward.

The SEC urged the Court to clarify that the election could proceed as per schedule, notwithstanding the stay on the impugned clarification.

Filing a stay vacation application before the Court, the SEC stated that although the High Court had orally observed during the July 11 hearing that the election process itself was not being stayed, this crucial observation did not find mention in the written order.

As a result, the SEC said, it was unable to move forward with the electoral process, especially since the clarification under challenge had been held to be in conflict with the bar under Section 9(6) and 9(7) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

The SEC submitted that the scrutiny of nomination papers had already been completed by July 9, 2025, and if the impugned clarification stood stayed, it would require revisiting the entire scrutiny process. This action, the SEC argued, was not only impermissible under the law but would also stall the entire election schedule.

It was also submitted that under Section 9(8) and 9(13) of the Act, no corrections, deletions, or additions to the voter rolls are permissible after the last date for making nominations and until the completion of the election.

It was in this regard that it was contended that since the last date for nomination was July 5 and the election process would conclude on July 31, any alterations to the electoral rolls during this period would be legally untenable.

It was further argued that inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll requires a detailed hearing process, and that such an exercise had already been conducted earlier.

A bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra, however, refused to entertain the plea.

Background

It may be noted that earlier on July 11, the Court had observed that the clarification, on its face of it, appeared to be prima facie contrary to the express provisions of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, specifically Sub-Section (6) and Sub-Section (7) of Section 9.

For context, the clarification, issued by the State Election Commission, is reproduced below :

"the nomination paper of a candidate will not be rejected only on the ground that his name is included in the electoral roll of more than one Gram Panchayat/Territorial Constituencies/Municipal Body"

The Court had passed this order while dealing with a plea which alleged that there are umpteen instances where candidates, whose names are found in multiple voter lists, are permitted to contest the elections, and on complaints being made in this regard, the state election commission had come up with the said clarification.

However, the High Court noted that this clarification directly conflicted with the statutory bar imposed by Sections 9(6) & 9(7) of the 2016 Act. For context, these provisions are reproduced below:

• Section 9(6): "No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for more than one territorial constituency or more than once in the electoral roll for the same territorial constituency."
• Section 9(7): "No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency if his name is entered in any electoral roll pertaining to any municipal corporation, municipality, Nagar Panchayat or cantonment unless he shows that his name has been struck off from such electoral roll."

The Court added that when the Statute expressly prohibits the registration of a voter in more than one territorial constituency or more than one electoral roll and the same being a statutory bar, the clarification now given by the State Election Commission “appears to be in the teeth of the bar under Sub-Section (6) and Sub-Section (7) of Section 9”.

Thus, staying the clarification, the bench posted the matter for a further hearing on August 11.

Advocates Abhijay Negi and Snigdha Tiwari appeared for the petitioners

Advocate Sanjay Bhatt appeared for the Respondent