The Supreme Court imposed a fine of two Lakh calls on the Uttarakhand Election Commission. As a result, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs 2 Lakh on the Uttarakhand Election Commission

Updated: Sat, 27 Sep 2025 04:07 am (IST) The Supreme Court did strictly against the Uttarakhand State Election Commission. The court not only rejected the petition that disputed the unconstitutional statement of the commission, but also imposed a fine of two Lakh calls on it. A Bank of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta question how the commission can go against constitutional provisions. Pti, New -Delhi. The Supreme Court strictly undertook against the Uttarakhand State Election Commission. The court not only rejected the petition that disputed the unconstitutional statement of the commission, but also imposed a fine of two Lakh calls on it. Remove the ad, just read the news, a Bank of Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta question how the commission can go against constitutional returns. The Supreme Court remained the explanation of the commission, saying that the candidate has the right to contest the election, despite being mentioned in the voter lists of more than one gram of Panchayat. His entry will not only be rejected on this basis. The commission disputed the Supreme Court’s order in the Supreme Court in July this year, saying that the elucidation was contrary to the first staff Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. The Requesters’ Commission said in the Supreme Court that there were countless cases in which the names of the candidates were allowed to dispute elections. The election body made it clear that the nomination of a candidate would not only be rejected on the grounds that the name was registered in more than one gram of Panchayats, regional constituties or municipal bodies. In this, sections 9 and Substroom (6) and (7) of the 2016 Act were also made the basis. Sub-Dhara (6) says that no person will be entitled to be registered in the voters list for more than one regional office or in the voters list for the same local constituency. It is written in subsection (7) that if a person’s name is included in any voter list related to the municipal corporation, municipality, Nagar Panchayat or Canton, then will not have the right to join the voters list for any regional constituent unless he shows that his name has been removed from such voters. The Supreme Court said that when the law clearly prohibits the registration of the voter in more than one regional office or more than one voter list and it is a statutory limitation. In such a situation, it appears that the explanation given by the commission is contrary to the ban under sub -section (6) and (7) of Article 9.