The Allahabad High Court has held that an election petition challenging the rejection of nomination papers in the election of a Kshettra Panchayat Pramukh is maintainable and the expression “ground or grounds” used in the Rules is wide enough to include cases where a nomination has been rejected improperly.
It further noted that while election law demands strict compliance with statutory provisions, the scope of an election challenge cannot be curtailed where the rules themselves employ broad language.
The ruling came from a Single Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar while allowing a writ petition moved by Munni Devi.
The matter related to the 2021 election for the post of Block Pramukh of Gangoh Block in the district of Saharanpur, which was earmarked under the OBC (Woman) reservation category.
During scrutiny of nomination papers, the nominations of two candidates, Babli and Kavita, were rejected because the photographs attached to their forms were allegedly not self-attested.
Further, due to the rejection of the nomination of the above candidates, they objected that their nomination paper cannot be rejected.
Later on, Assistant Returning Officer/District Cane Officer, Saharanpur, thereafter wrote a letter to the District Election Officer and found that the said objections had no force.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-rejects-delayed-compassionate-appointment/
Following the rejection of their papers, Munni Devi was declared elected unopposed for the office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, Saharanpur, under OBC (Women) Reservation Category.
Aggrieved by the decision, the rival candidate Smt. Babli approached the District Judge/ Election Tribunal, Saharanpur by filing an election petition seeking relief to declare the election void.
The District Judge/Election Tribunal, later vide an order dated 20.09.2023, set aside Munni Devi’s election and declared it null and void, holding that the rejection of the nominations was unsustainable. That order was then challenged in the form of a writ petition before the High Court.
During the hearing of the case, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Election Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction, and thereby, a vacancy has arisen which is also beyond the purview of the election petition.
Counsel for the petitioner further cited Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat (Election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, as
“any person who desires to be nominated as the candidate at an election to the office of the Pramukh shall deliver in person or through his proposer and seconder the nomination form duly filled in Form-II to the returning officer within the hours of 11 o’clock in the forenoon and 3’O clock in the afternoon on that date and the place specified in the notice under Rule 6, and the nomination paper shall be signed by the candidate and attested himself as assenting to the nomination and also by one member as proposer and other member as seconder.”
Not only this, but it was also placed before the court that the photograph of Smt. Babli in the nomination form was not duly self-attested, either by herself or by the proposer and seconder.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-questions-arms-licences-accused/
Lastly, it was argued that, as per provisions that are mandatory in nature as contained under Clause 6(a) of the circular dated 05-07-2021 issued by the State Election Commission, the nomination of Smt. Babli was rightly cancelled.
On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondents argued that the Returning Officer had rejected the nomination papers over a purely technical lapse that did not affect the substance of the candidature.
The respondent’s counsel argued that once the proposer, seconder, and also the candidate himself were present before the Returning Officer at the time of nomination/scrutiny and they were asking for self-attestation, then it cannot become a ground to reject the nomination.
Significantly, the bone of contention before the High Court is whether, against the rejection of the nomination, the election petition is maintainable or not.
The Court ruled that,
“…the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment in Anju (supra) but the said judgment is distinguishable, particularly, when Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules does not provide any specific ground on which an election petition can be filed. Thus, by virtue of a judicial fiat, this Court cannot curtail any ground, once it was never the intention of the rule making authority.”
The Bench further held that,
“…election petition is maintainable against the improper rejection of the nomination paper and to the said extent, the order under challenge of the Election Tribunal cannot be faulted.”
Accepting the argument of the petitioner, the Court referred to Rule 11(4) of the aforesaid 1994 Rules and observed that nomination papers should not ordinarily be rejected by the Returning Officer for defects that are of a technical or substantial character.
The Bench noted that when a defect is merely technical in nature and does not go to the root of the nomination, the Returning Officer should, as far as possible, allow the candidate to rectify it before taking the drastic step of rejection.
The Court noted that the important documents have not been considered by the Election Tribunal in pursuance of the registration of the paper number to the said documents.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Election Tribunal for passing a fresh order after considering requisite documents.
Case: Munni Devi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 34527 of 2023
Date of Order: 26.05.2026
Status: Allowed
