Garhwal Post Bureau
Dehradun, 30 Apr: The controversy surrounding the three-tier panchayat elections in Uttarakhand has intensified. Petitioner Shakti Singh Bartwal has reiterated that judicial directives prohibiting candidates with multiple entries in electoral rolls from contesting have not been duly enforced, despite clear orders from constitutional courts.
It may be recalled that Bartwal had filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court in July, following which, on 11 July, the Court had issued explicit directions stating that candidates whose names appear in more than one electoral roll would be held ineligible to contest panchayat elections. The State Election Commission was duly apprised of the order and urged to ensure its implementation. However, the Commission chose to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on the High Court’s decision. The apex court, however, declined to interfere and allowed the order to stand.
Addressing a press conference at the Dehradun Press Club, here, Bartwal said that recent rulings in cases from Dhari in Nainital district and Champawat had reinforced the principle that no individual is above the law. He cited the decision of the SDM’s court at Dhari, presided over by Anshul Bhatt, which annulled the election of Bhaderet gram pradhan Asha Matiyali after it was found that her name was registered in two separate voter lists. The court subsequently declared the runner-up candidate, Nirmal Singh, as duly elected.
In a similar case from Champawat, the court of District Judge Anuj Kumar Sangal set aside the election of district panchayat member Krishnanand Joshi. It was established that Joshi’s name appeared in both the voter list of Palsaun gram panchayat and the Nagnath ward of Champawat municipality, rendering his candidature invalid under the law.
Bartwal asserted that such instances highlight a serious challenge to the sanctity of democratic processes. He pointed out that the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 clearly stipulates that no person can be registered in more than one electoral roll. He alleged that, despite this, lapses in the functioning of the State Election Commission have allowed several ineligible candidates to contest and even secure victory. He emphasised that the High Court’s 11 July ruling, subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, leaves little ambiguity on the matter.
Bartwal further stated that the Supreme Court, while rejecting the Commission’s arguments, made strong observations questioning how decisions could be taken in contravention of the statutory provisions. He asserted that these remarks serve as a significant warning to constitutional authorities.
Expressing concern over delays in judicial resolution, Bartwal noted that nearly 1,200 election petitions related to similar issues are currently pending before various district courts in the state. Despite clear directions from the High Court and the Supreme Court, these cases have not progressed at the expected pace.
Bartwal announced that he would once again approach the Uttarakhand High Court to seek effective enforcement of the 11 July order. He also indicated that a contempt petition would be filed against the State Election Commissioner and the Secretary, alleging non-compliance with judicial directives. He maintained that candidates should not be held solely responsible, as the authority to reject nominations rests with returning officers acting under the directions of the State Election Commission. He alleged that both the Commission and the concerned authorities failed to adhere to the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, necessitating contempt proceedings.
