Uttarakhand HC Stays SEC Decision Allowing Candidates In Multiple Voter Rolls To Contest Panchayat Polls

The Court 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 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.