Six-Year Disqualification Over False Disclosure In Panchayat Elections Not Excessive: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a disqualification of six-years for Panchayat office bearers on account of false declarations in nomination forms is not arbitrary or excessive. The Court remarked that such a step is to ensure that such disqualification remains effective and meaningful, particularly in light of the five-year electoral cycle of Panchayati Raj Institutions. A...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a disqualification of six-years for Panchayat office bearers on account of false declarations in nomination forms is not arbitrary or excessive.
The Court remarked that such a step is to ensure that such disqualification remains effective and meaningful, particularly in light of the five-year electoral cycle of Panchayati Raj Institutions.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “6 years' disqualification has been provided with a purpose because any punishment provided for a period less than 5 years may render the disqualification to contest the elections redundant because in the Panchayati Raj Institutions, elections are held after completion of 5 years tenure and in case of disqualifying a person for a period less than 5 years, such person… shall be able to contest the next Panchayat elections…”
Background:
The petitioner, elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pangna in 2020, had failed to disclose a pending criminal case in his nomination form. This omission led to his election being declared void by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), a decision that was upheld in appeal, writ proceedings, and even by the Division Bench.
Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner invoked Section 146 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and disqualified the petitioner from contesting elections for six years, prompting the present challenge
The petitioner contended that disqualification from contesting the elections for 6 years for non-disclosure of pendency of criminal case, wherein petitioner also stands acquitted later on, is not only harsh and disproportionate but also ultra vires to the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
He further contended that Section 146(2) providing no discretion to the concerned competent Authority to impose proportionate punishment depending upon the nature of cause attracting disqualification to contest to the post of and to continue as, office bearer of the Panchayat is arbitrary as it leaves no room for imposing lesser penalty in appropriate cases and therefore, this provision also deserves to be struck down.
The Court remarked that the petitioner deliberately filed a false affidavit/undertaking concealing the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. The Court clarified that disqualification was not based on the nature or gravity of the offence, but on the act of making a false declaration itself.
The court stated that that a candidate is expected to act honestly and disclose all particulars carefully with responsibility and also having due regard to the sanctity of declaration to be made in Nomination Form.
Thus, the Court held that for corrupt practices in the election process, punishment should be harsher and the disqualification under Section 146(2) of the Act is not harsh or disproportionate.
Case Name: Basant Lal V/s State of H.P. & others
Case No.: CWP No.9629 of 2025
Date of Decision: 17.04.2026
For the petitioner: M/s Mukul Sood and Het Ram Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3.