Panchayat Polls | Fake Or Genuine Votes? Uttarakhand High Court Says Such Disputes Can Only Be Decided In Election Petition

Thus, adopting a 'hands-off approach', a Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani refused to entertain a writ plea seeking to quash votes cast in a particular polling booth and an independent inquiry against the erring officials involved in the 'corrupt' practice of getting 'fake' votes.

Briefly, the writ petition was filed by Rajendra Singh Chauhan, who claimed that he contested the election for the Membership of Kshetra Panchayat 2 from Kshetra Joshi Gothan, Block and Tehsil Kalsi, District Dehradun, and that 38 fake votes were cast during the elections.

Therefore, he sought the quashing of those votes and a high-level enquiry into the matter.

Before the court, the State Election Commission submitted that since the issue pertained to an election dispute, it would require a trial.

He contended that the allegations can't be decided in the writ petition in view of the bar created under Article 234-O of the Constitution of India and Section 131-H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

At the outset, the bench referred to Section 131-H of the 2016 Act and Article 234-O of the Constitution and noted that while the statutory provisions may not curtail the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there are self-imposed limitations as to under what circumstances this jurisdiction should be exercised.

Furthermore, the Court also took into account the recent order of the High Court (decided onJuly 25, 2025), which referred to the following observations of the top Court's 2018 judgment in West Bengal State Election Commission and others vs. CommunistParty of India (MARXIST) and others:

"once the election process has commenced, it is trite law that it should not be interdicted mid stage. The electoral process is afforded sanctity in a democracy. That is the reason why in a consistent line of precedent, this Court has insisted upon the discipline of the law being followed so that any challenge to the validity of an election has to be addressed by adopting the remedy of an election petition provided under the governing statute".

The single judge further noted that in Shri Ram Singh Case (supra), the High Court had also referred to the Supreme Court 2021 ruling in the case of State of Goa and another v FouziaImtiaz Shaik LL 2021 SC 158, to observe thus:

"In the case of State of Goa (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 68.1 of the judgment observed that from the date of notification of the election till the date of the declaration of result a judicial hands-off is mandated by the non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG(B)".

For context, in Shri Ram Singh case (supra), the Uttarakhand HC refused to entertain a writ plea filed against the improper acceptance of nomination papers. The bench noted that the petitioner had the remedy of filing an election petition.

Against this backdrop, the bench in the present matter too, refused to entertain the plea claiming caste of fake votes in Polling Centre No.75, Junior High School, Datnu (Erstwhile Badnu), Block and Tehsil Kalsi, District Dehradun, at Polling Booth No.82, Junior High School, Datnu (Erstwhile Badnu), Block Tehsil, Kalsi, District Dehradun.

Appearances

For Petitioner: Advocate Sagar Kothari,

Brief Holder for the State: Advocate MS Bisht,

For State Election Commission: Advocate Sanjay Bhatt,

For the respondent no.7: Advocate Bhuwan Bhatt