Article 243-O Panchayat Election Dispute: Supreme Court Bars High Court Interference

Case Summary

• Case: Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.20241 of 2025)

• Citation: 2026 INSC 105

• Date of Judgment: 2 February 2026

• Bench: Honourable Justice Vikram Nath; Honourable Justice Sandeep Mehta

• Counsel/Advocates: Not indicated in the judgment (not on record)

• Statutes/Provisions Considered: Constitution of India, Article 243-O; Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992; Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 — Section 131H; Section 90 (referred to in the factual matrix)

• Key authorities cited: Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 383; Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 242; C. Subrahmanyam, (1998) 8 SCC 703; Laxmibai v. Collector, (2020) 12 SCC 186; N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 9

Introduction and Core Holding

The Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa (2026 INSC 105) reaffirms the settled proposition that Article 243-O of the Constitution is an express constitutional embargo on judicial interference in Panchayat electoral disputes where the State Legislature has prescribed a remedy. The Bench, comprising Honourable Justice Vikram Nath and Honourable Justice Sandeep Mehta, allowed the appellant’s challenge to an interim order of the Uttarakhand High Court, set aside that interim order and dismissed the intra-court appeal. The Court emphasised the exclusive and statutory character of election petitions under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, notably Section 131H, and underscored the need for judicial restraint under Article 226 where an efficacious statutory alternative exists.

Context and Factual Matrix

This appeal arises from a dispute in the Zila Panchayat election for Constituency No. 11, Bharhgaon, District Pithoragarh. The appellant had been declared elected unopposed on 11 July 2025 after the Returning Officer cancelled the candidature of respondent No. 1 on 9 July 2025 following the appellant’s objection. Respondent No. 1’s writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that an election process was in motion and that the writ was not maintainable. On intra-court appeal, the Division Bench stayed the Single Judge’s order and directed symbol allotment to respondent No. 1, permitting him to participate in the election — an order that directly impacted the appellant who had already been declared elected. The Supreme Court intervened and set aside that interim order.

Constitutional and Statutory Issues Considered

Three legal themes dominate the reasoning: (i) the scope and effect of Article 243-O, (ii) the sufficiency and exclusivity of the statutory remedy under Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and (iii) the limits on judicial intervention by High Courts under Article 226 when an efficacious statutory scheme exists.

1. Article 243-O as a Constitutional Embargo

The Court restated that Article 243-O(b) provides that "no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." The non-obstante opening to Article 243-O was treated as significant: the constitutional amendment elevating Panchayati Raj institutions requires channeling electoral challenges through statutory mechanisms designed to protect the continuity and finality of local governance.

2. The Statutory Scheme — Section 131H

The judgment examined Section 131H in detail and held that it furnishes a comprehensive, time-bound and efficacious mechanism to challenge improprieties in nomination or electoral procedure. The Court rejected the Division Bench’s view that no efficacious remedy was available and underlined that Section 131H contemplates summary redressal, revision to the District Judge and prescribed authorities (Assistant Collector/ Pargana Magistrate) — all of which show an intended exclusivity of forum.

3. Judicial Restraint Under Article 226

Drawing on precedent, including Harnek Singh and N.P. Ponnuswami, the Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised to interfere with electoral processes where specific election law remedies exist. The Court stressed that High Courts must exercise "great circumspection and restraint" and must not lightly interdict ongoing elections. The judgment also flagged procedural unfairness in the Division Bench’s action — the appellant, already declared elected, was not given a hearing before the High Court stayed the Single Judge’s order.

Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest

The Court recognised the tension between a candidate’s right to seek judicial relief and the public interest in the undisturbed conduct of elections. It resolved the balance in favour of the statutory scheme, noting that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, if exercised casually, would defeat the purpose of Article 243-O. The Court was careful to state that the writ jurisdiction is not extinguished; rather, it is to be channelled through the statutory remedy unless the statutory scheme is manifestly inadequate or incapable of providing relief — circumstances not present on the facts.

Salient Quotations

• "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution . . . no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition . . ." (Article 243-O(b)).

• "The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance."

• "Where the statute provides a complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, the extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would defeat the very object for which Article 243-O was enacted."

Practical Takeaways for Practitioners

• Challenge to nomination rejections in Panchayat elections should normally be pursued under the election petition mechanism prescribed by the relevant State Panchayati Raj statute. Practitioners should ensure strict compliance with time limits and procedural prescriptions under Section 131H (or its statutory equivalent).

• High Courts will exercise restraint in entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 during the interregnum of an election process where the statutory remedy is available and efficacious. Emergency writs will be exceptional and must demonstrate the inadequacy of statutory remedy or a gross illegality that cannot be remedied otherwise.

• Attention to procedural safeguards is critical: appellants and affected parties must be impleaded and heard before interim directions are issued that disturb finality reached in the electoral process.

Concluding Observations

The judgment serves as a timely reminder of the constitutional design behind the 73rd Amendment: to protect the autonomy and continuity of Panchayati Raj institutions by entrusting electoral disputes to statutory fora tailored for that purpose. For litigators, the decision urges meticulous reliance on the election petition route and cautions against seeking interim equitable relief in the High Court where the statute provides a clear remedy. The ruling upholds the constitutional primacy of Article 243-O while preserving the residual scope of judicial review for truly exceptional cases.

On Article 243-O, the Scheme of the Panchayati Raj Act and the Limits of Article 226

"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. The election jurisprudence in this country has undergone a significant evolution. With a view to maintaining a delicate balance between decisions rendered by statutory authorities and judicial intervention by way of judicial review, a stage was reached where Parliament considered it appropriate to accord constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj institutions.

9.1. Accordingly, Part IX, titled ‘The Panchayats’, was inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992. The said constitutional amendment gives effect to Article 40 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which enjoins the State to take steps to organise village panchayats and to endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. By virtue of this amendment, the Panchayati Raj institutions were elevated from a non-justiciable to a constitutionally enforceable framework. At the same time, the States were accorded sufficient latitude to structure and implement the Panchayati Raj system having due regard to their distinct geographical, political, administrative and other local conditions.

9.2. Article 243-O of the Constitution, introduced by the aforesaid constitutional amendment, places an express embargo on judicial interference in matters relating to elections to the Panchayats. The provision reads as follows: -

243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.– Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution–

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;

(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.

Therefore, Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that no election to any Panchayat can be called in question except by way of an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided by the State Legislature."