DEHRADUN: The Uttarakhand High court has temporarily stayed a controversial circular issued by the State Election Commission (SEC) regarding individuals whose names appear on both urban municipal and rural gram panchayat voter lists.
While affirming that a person can only vote or contest elections from a single location, a division bench also underscored the constitutional right of every citizen to exercise their franchise.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mehra. The court's decision came amidst a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the ambiguity surrounding dual voter entries during the forthcoming Panchayat elections.
The SEC had initially circulated a directive to all District Magistrates, seeking clarification on whether individuals listed in both urban and rural voter rolls should be permitted to vote or contest.
However, the commission reportedly received no clear or positive response from the administration on this crucial query.
During Friday's hearing, the High Court put a stay on the SEC's circular, explicitly stating that it was not in favour of obstructing the ongoing election process.
The Election Commission, in its submission, explained that the circular was merely an attempt to seek opinions from District Magistrates on the applicability of rules for those with dual entries.
The SEC further clarified that Sub-section 13 of Section 9 of the Panchayati Raj Act mandates that a voter or candidate's name should appear in only one voter list.
It was based on these considerations and the broader principle of constitutional voting rights that the High Court decided to stay the operation of the SEC's earlier directive.
The issue had gained significant prominence as several candidates contesting the ongoing Panchayat elections were found to have their names listed in both municipal and three-tier panchayat voter rolls. This anomaly led to varying decisions by returning officers, with some nominations being rejected while others were accepted despite dual entries.
The PIL filed in the High Court had argued that having names on two separate voter lists is considered a criminal offence in any state across the country. The petitioner questioned the basis on which the Uttarakhand State Election Commission was approving the candidacies of such individuals.
The litigation originated from a complaint lodged by social activist Shakti Singh Bartwal. Bartwal, who had written to the Uttarakhand State Election Commission on July 7 and 8, told TNIE, "I had sought clear directives from the State Election Commission to prevent voters and candidates whose names appear on municipal election rolls from participating in the ongoing three-tier Panchayat elections."
Dissatisfied with the SEC's response and alleging non-compliance with Sub-sections 6 and 7 of Section 9 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the petitioner subsequently approached the High Court.