The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, recently set aside an order passed in a Panchayat election dispute, ruling that proper legal procedure must be followed while deciding election petitions. The case (Rashmi vs. Bharti & Others, W.P. No. 27091/2022) was argued by Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar, who successfully highlighted procedural lapses that affected the fairness of the proceedings.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a Panchayat election where one of the candidates challenged the result by filing an election petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993. The SDO disposed of the petition without framing formal issues or allowing the parties to lead evidence, instead deciding the case only on the basis of written replies. This approach went against Rule 11 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, which mandates that such election disputes must be tried in the same manner as civil suits under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments by Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar
Advocate Tomar argued that the failure to frame issues and permit evidence was a serious procedural violation that invalidated the entire proceeding. He relied on judgments of the Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court that stress adherence to due process in election matters. The opposing side admitted that Rule 11 procedures were not strictly followed but contended that the order should still stand.
High Court’s Decision
The High Court accepted Advocate Tomar’s arguments and set aside the SDO’s order, holding that due process cannot be bypassed in election disputes. It directed the SDO to conduct a fresh hearing, frame proper issues, and give both sides an opportunity to present evidence. The Court fixed a three-month timeline for completing the process, ensuring a fair and transparent decision.
Impact of the Judgment
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s insistence on fair procedure in election disputes, especially at the grassroots Panchayat level, where procedural errors can directly affect democratic representation. The case also showcases Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar’s effective legal representation, resulting in protection of his client’s rights and restoration of due process.