The Gauhati High Court quashed an order of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) that had cancelled the election of the President of a Gaon Panchayat in Assam, holding that the cancellation was unsustainable in law. The case arose after allegations were made that the elected President’s nomination was defective, leading the DC to annul the election and direct fresh polls. Aggrieved by this, the elected President challenged the cancellation order before the High Court, asserting that the DC had acted without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory procedure.
The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act and Rules governing elections to Gaon Panchayats. It noted that the power to cancel an election is circumscribed by specific procedural safeguards and timelines, and that authorities must exercise such powers in accordance with the statutory scheme. The court observed that the DC’s order did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the defects alleged in the nomination process were of such a nature as to justify outright cancellation of the election, particularly in the absence of a clear statutory provision empowering the DC to take such a drastic step at the stage when the challenge was raised.
In its analysis, the High Court emphasised the importance of electoral sanctity and the principle that administrative orders affecting the outcome of elections must be issued only if there is a compelling legal basis. The bench noted that in the present case, the challenge to the nomination could have been raised before the appropriate forum, including the Election Authority or an Election Tribunal, within the time prescribed by law, but was instead taken up later in a manner that did not conform with procedural requirements. The High Court highlighted that the DC had bypassed the established process and substituted his own view on points of nomination and eligibility without reference to the correct statutory mechanism.
Noting that the manner and timing of the challenge were significant, the High Court held that the DC’s order was arbitrary and liable to be set aside. The court observed that the election had been held in accordance with the notified schedule and that voters had exercised their franchise on the basis of duly submitted and accepted nomination papers. The High Court also pointed out that cancellation of an election after voting and declaration of results should not be lightly undertaken and must be supported by clear legal authority and due procedure, which were lacking in the impugned order.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the DC’s cancellation order, restored the status of the elected President, and directed that the declaration of results should stand. The court’s decision reaffirmed the principle that administrative authorities cannot interfere with or annul the results of local body elections without strict adherence to the statutory scheme and appropriate legal justification. This judgment serves to protect the integrity of the electoral process in Panchayat elections and to ensure that challenges to electoral outcomes are adjudicated through the proper legal channels and within prescribed timelines.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.