Supreme Court Slaps Rs2 Lakh Costs on Uttarakhand Election Commission for Justifying Names in Multiple Electoral Rolls
Ummar Jamal (Bar  and  Bench) 26 September 2025
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed imposed costs of 2 lakh on the Uttarakhand State Election Commission (SEC) for issuing a clarification stating that a candidate’s nomination paper will not be rejected only on the ground that his name appears in the electoral roll of more than one gram panchayat, territorial constituency or municipal body.
 
While dismissing the SEC's appeal against a stay on the clarification issued by the Uttarakhand High Court in July, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned how the poll body could go against the statutory provisions.
 
A High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra in July this year had observed that the clarification issued by the CEC runs contrary to the express provisions of Section 9(6) and 9(7) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which prohibit a voter from being registered in more than one territorial constituency or on more than one electoral roll.
 
"The clarification, as noted supra, prima facie, appears to be in the teeth of the statutory provisions noted above. When the Statute expressly prohibits 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 now given by the State Election Commission appears to be in the teeth of the bar under Sub-Section (6) and Sub-Section (7) of Section 9. 6. 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," the Court said.
 
The High Court order was passed in the case filed by one Shakti Singh, who alleged that the SEC had failed in its duty to properly scrutinise and verify nomination papers. According to the petitioner, this dereliction of duty had led to instances where individuals appeared on multiple electoral rolls. 
 
He further submitted that despite the irregularity, several candidates had been allowed to contest the election, thereby undermining the integrity of the electoral process. It was submitted that after several complaints were lodged in this regard, the SEC had issued the clarification in question. 
 
After the High Court stayed the SEC decision, the poll body moved the top court. The plea was dismissed today.
 
Comments
Sonam Wangchuk Arrested, Home Ministry Blames Him for Ladakh Protests, Cancels FCRA Licence of SECMOL
Moneylife Digital Team 26 September 2025
Ladakh climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk was arrested in Leh on Friday, two days after violent protests over demands for statehood and constitutional safeguards shook the Union Territory (UT), leaving four people...
Newslaundry, Ravish Kumar and Adani Agree on Status Quo Till Interim Injunction Decided by Lower Court
Bhavini Srivastava (Bar  and  Bench) 26 September 2025
Digital news platform Newslaundry and journalist Ravish Kumar arrived at an agreement with Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) on Friday to maintain status quo as it exists today with respect to the dispute between them over allegedly...
Relief for Paranjoy Guha Thakurta: District Court Suspends Adani Gag Order Pending Fresh Hearing
Moneylife Digital Team 26 September 2025
In a significant relief for journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a Delhi district court has lifted an ex parte injunction that had restrained him from reporting on Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL). The gag order, issued on 6th September by a...
‘Farmers Can’t Compete with Imports at Half the MSP’: SC Issues Notice to Govt on PIL against Yellow Pea Imports
Moneylife Digital Team 25 September 2025
The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Union government on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Kisan Mahapanchayat which has challenged the government’s policy of allowing duty-free imports of yellow peas, a cheaper...
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback