Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In this case, the Patna High Court addressed a dispute involving the cancellation of a candidate’s nomination for the post of Mukhia (village head) of Gram Panchayat Raj Manjhi (East) in Saran district, Bihar. The candidate, referred to as the petitioner, claimed to be an eligible voter and had filed his nomination accordingly. However, complications arose due to discrepancies in his name across electoral rolls.

Initially, the petitioner’s name appeared incorrectly as “Nasiruddin Mian” in the Assembly Electoral Roll of 2015. He claimed that this was an error and submitted a correction request in February 2016. Based on this, the name was corrected in the Assembly voter list to “Sukti,” before the last date of nomination filing. Relying on this correction, he contested the Panchayat elections held in April 2016.

After polling, but before results were declared, a rival candidate (respondent no. 6) lodged a complaint with the State Election Commission alleging that the petitioner was not a valid voter in the Panchayat voter list and hence not eligible to contest. Acting on this complaint, the Election Commission withheld the declaration of results and later cancelled the petitioner’s candidature altogether. A fresh election was ordered from among the remaining candidates.

The petitioner challenged this action through a writ petition, arguing that his nomination was valid as his name had been corrected in the Assembly roll, and that the Commission acted beyond its powers. However, the learned Single Judge upheld the Commission’s decision. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), and simultaneously, the complainant (respondent no. 6) filed a cross-appeal requesting a recount in the second election.

The Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed both appeals. It held that the State Election Commission had the jurisdiction and responsibility to ensure the purity of the electoral process. The Court emphasized that a candidate must have their correct name in the relevant electoral rolls by the notified deadline. In this case, the correction was made after the permitted period and only in the Assembly roll — not in the Panchayat voter list. Hence, the petitioner lacked the legal qualification to contest.

The Court also clarified that even though the petitioner’s photo appeared in the rolls, the incorrect name rendered him ineligible. Moreover, the Commission’s intervention was not an overreach but a rightful exercise of its statutory powers under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the authority of the State Election Commission to act decisively in protecting the integrity of elections at the Panchayat level. It clarifies that mere appearance of a candidate’s name or photo in any voter list is not sufficient; compliance with electoral roll deadlines and proper documentation is essential.

For voters and candidates, this decision underscores the importance of ensuring all corrections and entries in the electoral roll are made well before the stipulated cut-off dates. For the government and election officials, it confirms that election commissions are not just facilitators but custodians of free and fair elections.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to cancel candidature after polling but before result declaration:
  ✅ Yes; the Court upheld the Commission’s authority under Sections 123 and 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act.
• Whether correction in the Assembly electoral roll implies automatic correction in Panchayat voter list:
  ❌ No; separate procedures and timelines apply.
• Whether denial of hearing violated principles of natural justice:
  ❌ No; the petitioner’s own inaction led to his disqualification.
• Whether the Commission’s advisory allowed nomination based on corrected Assembly roll:
  ✅ Yes, but only if the correction was made within the deadline and the Commission’s permission was obtained — which was not the case here.
• Whether acceptance of nomination by Returning Officer precluded the Commission’s action:
  ❌ No; nomination acceptance does not override statutory voter list requirements.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Smt. Kumkum Devi v. State Election Commission, 2017 (4) PLJR 142
• Bibha Devi v. State Election Commission (Panchayat), 2017 (1) PLJR 225
• Prafful Chandra Sudhanshu v. State Election Commission, 2013 (2) PLJR 114
• Ashok Kapil v. Sanaullah & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 342
• Mahinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851
• Kishan Singh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352
• Krishna Moorthy v. Sivakumar, AIR 2015 SC 1
• Neeraj Singh v. State Election Commission, 2001 (1) PLJR 516

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Mahinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851
• Kishan Singh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352
• Krishna Moorthy v. Sivakumar, AIR 2015 SC 1
• Neeraj Singh v. State Election Commission, 2001 (1) PLJR 516

Case Title

Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1151 & 1173 of 2017

Case Number

LPA No. 1151 of 2017 and LPA No. 1173 of 2017

Citation(s)

2020 (1) PLJR 783

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv. (For appellant in LPA 1151)
• Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Ms. Anita Kumari (For appellant)
• Mr. Amit Srivastava, Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh (For State Election Commission)
• Mr. Harish Kumar (For respondent no. 6 / appellant in LPA 1173)
• Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta (For respondent no. 7)

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxMTUxIzIwMTcjMSNO-I7–am1–lfZnsp9M=

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.