By ARUN PRATAP SINGH
Garhwal Post Bureau
Nainital/ Dehradun, 18 Jul: In yet another instance of embarrassment for the Uttarakhand Election Commission, in particular, and for the state government indirectly, Uttarakhand High Court today permitted another candidate to contest after his nomination was rejected by the state election commission. The High Court today overturned the State Election Commission’s decision to reject the nomination of Narendra Singh Devpa, allowing him to contest the District Panchayat member’s election from Didihat.
The Court’s ruling has reignited debate over procedural fairness in the ongoing Panchayat elections, steadily emerging as a legal flashpoint for the Election Commission.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mehra. Devpa’s nomination had earlier been rejected by the returning officer on the grounds that he had left blank the column requiring disclosure of past criminal cases. The officer argued that this omission violated procedural norms. However, Devpa countered that the nomination form itself was inconsistent with Section 9 of the State Panchayati Raj Rules and maintained that since he had been acquitted in all cases, there was no legal requirement to disclose them. He argued that the Commission’s decision lacked statutory backing and amounted to undue interference.
Earlier, Devpa’s challenge before a single bench of the High Court was dismissed, compelling him to file an appeal before the division bench. The division bench found merit in his argument and stayed the cancellation order, ruling that the rejection was inconsistent with the spirit of the relevant legislative provisions. Consequently, Devpa has now been granted permission to contest the election.
During the hearing, the Court also sought clarification from the Election Commission regarding the procedural status of the election symbols. The Commission responded that the scrutiny process had concluded, ineligible forms had been rejected, and ballot papers had already gone to press. Expressing concern, the Court remarked that the election process was ongoing, not concluded, and questioned the rationale behind proceeding with ballot printing while legal challenges were still under judicial consideration. It criticised the Election Commission for printing ballots prior to allocating symbols and taking candidates’ preferences into account, calling it premature and procedurally improper.
Legal experts note that this judgment not only reinstates Devpa’s candidature but also sets a precedent on the interpretation of nomination form requirements, especially in cases involving acquittals. However, some legal experts in this particular case claim that the Election Commission should not be blamed for rejecting Devpa’s nomination as he had avoided mentioning criminal cases against him. However, the case may prompt a review of the nomination vetting process across Panchayat elections, potentially curbing discretionary cancellations that do not align with statutory law.
