Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the Patna High Court reviewed a decision by the State Election Commission, Bihar, which had disqualified a candidate who was elected as Mukhiya of Aslempur Gram Panchayat in Gaya district. The disqualification was based on the allegation that she was below 21 years of age at the time of filing her nomination papers.
The appellant was declared elected as Mukhiya following the Panchayat elections. However, a complaint was filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates, arguing that the elected candidate was ineligible because she had not attained the minimum age requirement under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Acting on the complaint, the Commissioner of the State Election Commission disqualified the elected candidate under Section 136(2) of the Act and declared the Mukhiya seat vacant.
The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge upheld the Commissioner’s order, which led to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench of the Court.
A key question in the appeal was whether the State Election Commission has the power to disqualify an elected candidate after elections are over, particularly in cases where such disqualification involves factual disputes (such as age) that may require formal evidence and adjudication.
The Court referred to a Full Bench judgment that had addressed similar legal questions. The Full Bench clarified that the Election Commission does have the power to consider both pre-election and post-election disqualifications, but only in limited circumstances. Where the dispute involves contentious facts requiring detailed evidence—such as age verification—it must be resolved by a competent authority or court, not unilaterally by the Commission.
In this case, the High Court found that the Commissioner had not applied his independent mind but had simply relied on a report submitted by the District Collector regarding the candidate’s age. This, the Court held, was insufficient and violated the principle that such decisions must be based on clear, admissible evidence and a reasoned adjudication.
Recognizing this lapse, all parties agreed during the hearing that the matter should be sent back for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the earlier disqualification order and directed the Election Commissioner to rehear the matter on its merits, taking into account the legal position laid down by the Full Bench.
The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on a specified date, and the Commissioner was instructed to conclude the proceedings within 45 days.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory bodies like the State Election Commission must act within the boundaries of their legal authority and cannot make decisions on disputed facts without proper inquiry and reasoning. It protects the rights of elected representatives from arbitrary disqualification and ensures that any serious allegations are examined fairly and transparently.
For citizens and future candidates, it sends a message that while electoral integrity is important, it must be balanced with procedural fairness. For the government and Election Commission, it serves as a guide to handle complaints with due process and clarity on jurisdictional limits.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Does the State Election Commission have power to disqualify a candidate after election?
- Court’s Decision: Yes, but only when the disqualification is clear from unimpeachable material and does not involve contentious factual disputes.
- Was the Commissioner justified in disqualifying the appellant without independent adjudication?
- Court’s Decision: No. The decision was based entirely on a report by the District Collector and lacked proper reasoning and independent judgment.
- Should the matter be remanded for fresh adjudication?
- Court’s Decision: Yes. The Court set aside the disqualification and remitted the case to the Election Commissioner for a fresh, lawful decision.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Full Bench decision interpreting Section 136(2) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006
- Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Sections 476 and 479 (for comparison and analysis)
Case Title
Rajani Kumari v. The State Election Commission, Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No. 566 of 2017
In CWJC No. 3265 of 2017
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 188
Coram and Names of Judges
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ashok Kumar — For the Appellant
- Mr. Amit Shrivastava and Mr. Girish Pandey — For the Election Commission
- Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG-8 — For the State
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM1NjYjMjAxNyMyI04=-njplvkiag–am1–M=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
