Election Law Case: Mulchandra Azad v. Madan Mohan Joshi & Others, N.K.P.2025, Vol. 11
Case: Certiorari
Petitioner: Mulchandra Azad
Respondents: Madan Mohan Joshi and Others
Decision Number: 450
This case concerns the legal procedure for resolving a tied election.
Facts of the Case:
Mulchandra Azad and Khemraj Shrestha were the only two candidates for the post of Chairman of Banke District Panchayat. In the election held on 2023/11/29 B.S., both candidates received 23 votes each, so neither candidate won.
Under Section 14(3) of the District Panchayat Act, 2019, when candidates receive equal votes, the result has to be decided by drawing lots(Gola Pratha).
However, instead of using Gola Pratha, the Election Officer, Madan Mohan Joshi, conducted another election on 2023/12/01 B.S. by relying on Rule 21(2) of the District Panchayat (Election) Rules, 2019, which required a candidate for Chairman or Vice-Chairman to obtain more than 50% of the votes. In that second election, Khemraj Shrestha received four more votes than Mulchandra Azad and was declared the winner.
Mulchandra believed that the second election was conducted using a rule that conflicted with the parent Act. He therefore challenged the election before the Election Special Court. When the Election Special Court dismissed his challenge and upheld the election, he then approached the Supreme Court and requested an Certiorari (Utpreshan) order to cancel the decision of the Election Special Court and the second election.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the Supreme Court could entertain a writ petition against the final decision of the Election Special Court when an alternative legal remedy had already been used.
- Whether the Election Officer’s second voting and the Election Special Court’s decision could be challenged through one writ petition.
- Whether Mulchandra’s participation in the second election prevented him from later challenging its legality.
- Whether Rule 21(2) of the District Panchayat (Election) Rules, 2019 was inconsistent with Section 14(3) of the District Panchayat Act, 2019.
- Whether the second election should be cancelled while preserving the valid part of the original election process.
Decision of the Courts:
Election Special Court:
The Election Special Court rejected Mulchandra Azad’s challenge and upheld the second election. It considered the second election to have been conducted according to the applicable election rules. Therefore, Mulchandra’s complaint was dismissed.
Supreme Court Division Bench:
The Division Bench gave different opinions. One judge upheld the second election, while the other held it invalid because Gola Pratha was legally required after the tie. Due to this disagreement, the case was referred to the Full Bench
Full Bench:
The Full Bench ruled in favour of Mulchandra Azad. It held that Section 14(3) of the District Panchayat Act, 2019 provided that when candidates received equal votes, the result had to be decided through Gola Pratha (drawing lots).
However, Rule 21(2) of the District Panchayat (Election) Rules, 2019 provided for another election when no candidate obtained the required majority. The Court held that this provision of the Rule could not override the Act. Since a Rule cannot contradict its parent Act, the conflicting part of Rule 21(2) was invalid.
Therefore, the Court cancelled the second election and the decision of the Election Special Court. Since the original election had ended in a 23–23 tie, the Election Commission was directed to complete the election process through Gola Pratha, as required by Section 14(3) of the Act.
Principle Established:
The Court established that a subordinate rule cannot contradict the parent Act under which it is made. If a rule goes beyond or conflicts with the main Act, the conflicting part of the rule is invalid. The Court also established that the Supreme Court can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction against a final decision when there is a clear and apparent error of law. Utpreshan is a supervisory remedy used to correct such legal errors; it is not an appeal.
Relevancy of the Case:
This case is important for understanding judicial review, delegated legislation, writ jurisdiction, Utpreshan and Paramadesh. It clearly shows that a rule cannot go against the Act under which it is made. It is also important because the Supreme Court explained that even a final decision may be reviewed through its extraordinary jurisdiction when there is a clear error of law. Therefore, the case is highly relevant to Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Procedural Law, particularly the principles of ultra vires, judicial review and writ remedies.
