Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors.

from exercising jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution where a law enacted by the State Legislature provides for the remedy of an election petition to redress grievances arising during the course of an election – The State of Uttarakhand has enacted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 – Consequently, the bar envisaged u/Art.243-O of the Constitution stands attracted – The election process cannot be lightly interdicted or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance – The right to contest or question an election being statutory in nature, must be strictly construed and exercised in accordance with the statute governing the field – The High Court must, therefore, eschew the grant of liberal interim reliefs in favour of individuals and instead remain mindful of the overarching public interest in ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of elections across the State – In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and exclusive remedy lies by way of an election petition – Given the non-obstante nature of Art.243-O of the Constitution, its mandate is required to be adhered to in both letter and spirit – Where the statute provides a complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, the extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution would defeat the very object for which Art.243-O was enacted as a non-obstante provision – Accordingly, the interim order dated 18.07.2025, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No.192 of 2025 is set aside. [Paras 9, 10, 12] Case Law Cited Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, 2005 INSC 498 : [2005] Supp. 4 SCR 223 : (2005) 8 SCC 383 – relied on.