Supreme Court rejects Uttarakhand SEC’s plea on dual‑voter clarification, fines Rs 2 lakh, backs HC order
The Supreme Court on Friday, 26 September, threw out Uttarakhand State Election Commission's appeal against a High Court order that stayed a circular allowing candidates with names in multiple voter lists. The court also imposed a Rs 2 lakh fine on the SEC.
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand State Election Commission (SEC) had issued a clarification that candidates would not be disqualified simply because their name appeared in multiple electoral rolls. This clarification was meant to help several applicants who contested in Panchayat elections.
However, the High Court stayed that circular, observing that it conflicted with the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which prohibits registration of a voter in more than one territorial constituency.
High Court stay was challenged in Supreme Court
The SEC challenged the High Court’s stay in the Supreme Court. However, a Bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition. The Bench questioned how the SEC could act contrary to the express statutory provision, asking, "How can you decide contrary to the statutory provision?”
Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act prohibits a voter registered in more than one constituency
In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld that the High Court was correct in staying the clarification. It noted that Sections 9(6) and 9(7) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act clearly prohibit a person from being registered as a voter in more than one constituency. The SEC’s circular, therefore, prima facie violated those statutory bars.
A fine of Rs 2 lakh was also imposed
Besides dismissing the plea, the Supreme Court also imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the SEC. This penalty underlines the seriousness with which the court viewed the SEC’s attempt to override a statutory restriction.
Decision reinforces that election regulations cannot be bypassed
This ruling has immediate implications for Panchayat elections in Uttarakhand. Candidates whose names appear in multiple electoral rolls cannot rely on the SEC’s earlier clarification to contest. They must now ensure their voter registration strictly follows the statutory rules. The decision reinforces that election regulations cannot be bypassed by administrative clarifications when they clash with the law.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s verdict reaffirms that bodies like the SEC must act within the limits set by law. Even in cases of electoral reform or procedural convenience, constitutional and legislative truths remain paramount.