SC upholds HC order against Uttarakhand SEC on multiple voter rolls in panchayat polls

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Uttarakhand State Election Commission's plea challenging an order staying its clarification that a candidate's nomination paper would not be rejected only because their name was included in the electoral roll of more than one gram panchayat.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also imposed a Rs 2 lakh cost on the petitioner, asking how could the commission go contrary to the statutory provisions.

The commission challenged the Uttarakhand High Court's July order which said the clarification prima facie appeared to be contrary to the mandate of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

The petitioner before the high court had said there were umpteen number of instances where candidates, whose names were found in multiple voter list, were permitted to contest elections.

The poll body clarified "the nomination paper of a candidate will not be rejected only on the ground that his name is included in the electoral roll of more than one gram panchayat/territorial constituencies/municipal body".

It referred to sub-section (6) and sub-section (7) of Section 9 of the 2016 Act.

While sub-section (6), says no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for more than one territorial constituency or more than once in electoral roll for the same territorial constituency, sub-section (7) reads, "No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency if his name is entered in any electoral roll pertaining to any, municipal corporation, municipality, nagar panchayat or cantonment unless he shows that his name has been struck off from such electoral roll".

The high court said when the statute expressly prohibited the registration of a voter in more than one territorial constituency or more than one electoral roll and the same being a statutory bar, the clarification given appeared to be in the teeth of the bar under sub-section (6) and sub-section (7) of Section 9.

"In that view, the clarification, prima facie, appears to be contrary to the mandate of sub-section (6) and sub-section (7) of Section 9, requires to be stayed and is stayed and shall not be acted upon," it said.