Endangering democracy: Uttarakhand High Court flags illegalities by returning officers in panchayat polls

The Uttarakhand High Court has taken note of gross illegalities committed by returning officers during the nomination process for the upcoming panchayat elections scheduled to be held later this month [Seeta vs State Election Commissioner and another].

The Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra asked the State Election Commissioner to immediately intervenein the matter and ensure that appropriate instructions are issued to the returning officers.

“The Court cannot turn a blind eye to these apparent patent illegalities, which appear to be pre-meditated and motivated and in utter disregard of the Law of the Land,” the Court observed in the order passed on Wednesday.

It made the observations after coming across a case in which a candidate’s nomination had been rejected merely because the competing candidate had claimed that ‘No Dues Certificate’ seemed to be a fake.

In another case, the nomination of a different candidate had been rejected on the ground that a toilet, absence of which incurs disqualification, was present 150 meters away.

Dealing with the case of a candidate disqualified over alleged fake ‘no Dues Certificate’, the Court noted that nomination was rejected even after the bank had issued one more certificate stating that there was no amount due from her.

“To state that this is a clear case of endangering democracy could be going little soft on the Returning Officer. It appears that the Returning Officer has apparently misused the authority vested in him to ensure the election of the candidate,” the Court said in a stern reprimand of the officer’s conduct.

Prima facie, it appears that the returning officer has acted in a patently illegal manner, probably to influence the election of the other candidate, the Court further observed.

“Despite the availability of the said Certificate and despite the production of a second Certificate, even without an inquiry with the Co-operative Bank, or any expert opinion, the Returning Officer has blatantly and arbitrarily concluded that the Certificate is a fake one. It is also further clarified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, no order of rejection has been passed, but merely the name of the petitioner has been placed in the list of rejected candidates,” it added.

The Court said prima facie it was a fit case for investigation. However, the Court added that it would be appropriate to hear the returning officer first and thereafter pass any direction.

In the meantime, the Court directed the returning officer to allot the symbol to the petitioner and print her name in the ballot paper. 

“Accordingly there shall be a stay of the “Cancelled List” in so far as it relates to the Petitioner and further there shall be an interim direction, directing the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to the petitioner and print the name of the petitioner in the ballot papers and permit him to participate in the election process in respect of Ward No. 5 Bhutsi Panchayat,” it ordered. 

On the State’s objection against Court entertaining such petitions, the bench said,

“As already held that if it was an improper rejection, there would have been some substance in the objections raised by the Standing Counsel. In the instant case, it is a blatant illegality and an official act has been performed in patently illegal manner.”

Advocates Abhijay Negi, Snigdha Tiwari, and Ayush Pokhriyal represented the petitioners (candidates)

Advocate Sanjay Bhatt represented the State Election Commissioner.

[Read Order]