U’khand HC Directs DM To Produce Election Commission Booklet in Nainital Panchayat Poll Dispute

Nainital Panchayat Poll Dispute

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the Nainital District Magistrate to produce the Election Commission’s booklet on district panchayat elections, following a petition alleging ballot tampering during the recently held polls for Nainital District Panchayat president and vice president.

A division bench of Chief Justice G. Narendra and Justice Subhash Upadhyay issued the order on Tuesday while hearing the matter. The petition relates to the alleged overwriting of a ballot paper during vote counting on August 14.

During the proceedings, the bench suggested that the issues raised in the plea could be referred to the Election Commission for adjudication. However, the petitioner’s counsel objected, arguing that the Commission itself was “directly or indirectly accused” and should have taken suo motu action, especially since five district panchayat members had not exercised their votes.

Petition By Member Poonam Bisht

The case was brought by district panchayat member Poonam Bisht, who sought re-polls for both the president and vice-president posts. Her petition alleged that one ballot was tampered with—where the number “one” marked in front of a candidate’s name was allegedly overwritten as “two.” This alteration led to the vote being declared invalid, thereby affecting the election result.

Missing Members & FIR

The election witnessed participation from 22 out of 27 eligible members. However, controversy deepened when five members failed to cast their votes. An FIR was registered at Tallital police station, alleging that the members had been kidnapped.

Later, the 5 individuals released a video declaring they were safe. They also submitted an affidavit confirming that they had voluntarily abstained from voting, dismissing claims of coercion.

Concerns Over Electoral Integrity

The case has sparked a wider debate on the credibility of the electoral process at the district level. Allegations of ballot manipulation and claims of missing voters have raised questions on the transparency and oversight mechanisms in place.

Legal experts note that the High Court’s insistence on examining the Election Commission’s official rulebook—District Panchayat President and Vice President Election and Dispute Resolution Rules, 1994—will be crucial in determining whether proper procedures were followed.

Court has scheduled the next hearing for August 27. The District Magistrate is expected to present the Election Commission’s booklet before the bench on that day.