Article 243-O Constitution| High Court Cannot Interfere in Election Process; Remedy Lies Only Through Election Petition: Supreme Court
Says the right to contest an election is purely statutory, and courts must avoid liberal interim orders that disrupt the electoral process
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in its judgment has observed that the Uttarakhand High Court committed a manifest jurisdictional error by interfering in an ongoing Panchayat election after a candidate had already been declared elected unopposed, reiterating that Article 243-O of the Constitution of India bars judicial intervention in election matters where a statutory remedy exists i.e. an election petition.
The bench further emphasised that the right to contest an election is purely statutory, and courts must avoid liberal interim orders that disrupt the electoral process. Individual grievances such as rejection of nomination must be pursued only through an election petition, as provided under the law enacted by the Legislature of the concerned State. Entertaining writ petitions in such cases would defeat the very purpose which is otherwise designed to ensure smooth and uninterrupted elections, it further said.
Accordingly, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “…The High Court, therefore, committed a manifest error in interfering in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction...”.
“The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance. The right to contest or question an election being statutory in nature, must be strictly construed and exercised in accordance with the statute governing the field. The High Court must, therefore, eschew the grant of liberal interim reliefs in favour of individuals and instead remain mindful of the overarching public interest in ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of elections across the State”, the bench further opined.
Advocate S. K. Verma, AOR appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the appellant was declared elected unopposed on 11-07-2025 after the Returning Officer disqualified the remaining two candidates, including the contesting respondent.
The respondent’s writ petition challenging rejection of nomination had already been dismissed by a single judge bench of the High Court. However, in appeal, the division bench stayed that order and directed that the respondent be allotted a symbol and allowed to participate in the election.
Therefore, setting aside the High Court’s interim order dated 18-07-2025, the Supreme Court found three fundamental errors. First, the High Court acted in the teeth of the constitutional embargo under Article 243-O, which prohibits interference once the election process is underway and the statute provides a remedy. Second, the Court interfered with a process that had already attained finality, as the appellant stood declared elected. Third, the High Court granted relief without hearing the appellant, whose vested electoral position stood directly affected.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed the writ appeal, reinforcing that election disputes cannot be litigated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, once the electoral process has progressed.
Cause Title: Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 105]
Appearances:
Petitioner: S. K. Verma, AOR
Respondent: Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR