HC recalls Chola-era law, upholds 6-year bar for poll law violations

Shimla: With elections for panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) scheduled in May, Himachal Pradesh high court recalled the Chola-era Kudavolai system in Tamil Nadu and held that candidates disqualified from contesting panchayat elections must remain barred for the next electoral cycle, underscoring the legislature's clear intent to enforce accountability in grassroots democracy.The court emphasised that individuals seeking public office are duty-bound to act with honesty and disclose all relevant details in their nomination forms."In fact, for corrupt practices in the election process, punishment should be harsher," said the division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma while dismissing a petition moved by Basant Lal, former pradhan of Pangna gram panchayat in Mandi district.Drawing from historical precedents, like the Kudavolai system, the court highlighted that strict disqualification norms have long been integral to maintaining probity in public office. "If an elected member of a village committee was found guilty of corruption, theft, incest, or failing to submit accounts, he was disqualified and, in some interpretations of the inscriptions, their relatives were also barred from contesting elections," said the bench, adding that the village assembly could even recall representatives if they failed in their duties.Lal had challenged the Feb 3, 2025, order of Mandi deputy commissioner, which disqualified him from contesting elections and holding panchayat office for six years under Section 146(2) of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. He also sought to declare the provision unconstitutional, alleging it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.The case stemmed from the 2020 panchayat polls, in which Lal was elected Pradhan but his election was later set aside after it was found that he had deliberately concealed the pendency of a criminal case against him in his nomination form. The Karsog subdivisional officer (civil) annulled his election in April 2022, a decision subsequently upheld by appellate authorities and HC in earlier rounds of litigation.Rejecting the petitioner's contention that the six-year disqualification was "harsh and disproportionate", particularly as he was later acquitted in the criminal case, HC held that the penalty was not for the nature of the offence but for making a false declaration in the nomination paper. The bench observed that concealment of material facts strikes at the integrity of the electoral process and must be treated seriously.The bench reasoned that a disqualification period shorter than five years would defeat its purpose, as panchayat elections are held every five years, allowing disqualified candidates to recontest immediately.