BASANTI SAHOO v. RAMADEBI ROUTRAY
Election Law - Disqualification of Returned Candidate and Consequential Declaration of the Only Other Contesting Candidate as Duly Elected under the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 243
Decision Date: 10-03-2026
List of Laws
Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959; Election Law; Principles of Natural Justice (Opportunity to Defend); Interpretation of Statutes
- Facts: The appellant and the respondent contested the 2022 elections for Panchayat Samiti Members and were both elected. Subsequently, they were the only two candidates for the post of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, where the respondent was declared the winner. The appellant challenged the respondent's election before the Election Tribunal, alleging that the respondent was disqualified under Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, for having a third child after the prescribed cut-off date. The respondent failed to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Election Tribunal declared the respondent's election void and, noting only two candidates had contested, declared the appellant duly elected to the post of Chairman.
- Procedural Posture: The respondent appealed to the Election Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the disqualification but set aside the direction to appoint the appellant, ordering a fresh election instead. Both parties filed writ petitions before the Orissa High Court. The High Court dismissed both petitions, maintaining the order for a fresh election. The parties then approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions.
- Issue: 1. Whether the concurrent findings regarding the respondent's disqualification were sustainable. 2. Whether the appellant, as the only other contesting candidate, was entitled to be declared elected upon the disqualification of the returned candidate, or if a fresh election was mandatory.
- Holding: 1. Yes, the disqualification is upheld due to uncontroverted evidence. 2. Yes, the appellant is entitled to be declared elected. The orders for fresh elections were set aside.
- Reasoning: The Court held that the respondent's failure to cross-examine witnesses made the evidence of disqualification "clinching" and "uncontroverted". Regarding the consequential relief, the Court interpreted Sections 44-E and 44-J of the 1959 Act, which specifically empower the Tribunal to "declare another candidate to have been duly elected". Since there were only two contestants, the disqualification of one left the other as the only valid candidate who secured the next highest number of votes. Depriving the appellant of the office after three years of litigation by forcing a fresh election would be a "travesty of justice" and "wholly unwarranted".
🔒 For Members Only