The Civil Judge Sent The Real Question Away. That Was The Error.
A challenge to a Gram Panchayat election was referred out to a Prescribed Authority to decide the disqualification. The High Court has sent the whole petition back where it belongs.
The Court held that the election petition could not have been decided by the Prescribed Authority and ought to have been tried and decided by the Civil Judge under Chapter X of the Rules of 1997. The Prescribed Authority accordingly had no jurisdiction over the reference. Both orders were set aside and the election petition reverted to the Civil Judge.
- Two scenarios, two routes. A challenge to an election goes to the Civil Judge; a disqualification arising during a sitting member's tenure goes to the Prescribed Authority.
- The tense of the statute mattered. Section 120 says ‘has become’ subject to disqualification — present, not past.
- Everything about the election, including disqualification of the returned candidate, is examined in the election petition itself.
- Otherwise the Civil Judge is a clerk — the Court's own reason for rejecting the alternative reading.
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
- Citation
- W.P. (C) No. 26 of 2023
- Case
- W.P. (C) No. 26 of 2023
- Decided
- August 2026
- Outcome
- Petition allowed; orders set aside and election petition restored to the Civil Judge
The two situations the Act deals with
Section 120 provides that if any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any disqualification, the question shall be referred to the Prescribed Authority for its decision.
Those words are in the present tense, not the past. Read that way, they relate to a person who is already a member of a Gram Panchayat and who has become subject to a disqualification during that tenure — the second scenario.
A challenge to the election itself is the first scenario, and the route for it is the one in Chapter X of the Rules of 1997.
Why the reference was wrong
All questions relating to a challenge to an election, including whether the returned candidate was disqualified, have to be examined in the election petition, which must be filed before the Civil Judge.
This petition did not fall in the second scenario, so the route the Civil Judge took was not correct. He ought to have followed the procedure prescribed in Chapter X, tried it and decided it, as is required when an election petition calls the election of a returned candidate into question.
The alternative reading would leave the Civil Judge as an authority tasked only with procedural formalities, with the sole question of disqualification left entirely to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority therefore had no jurisdiction to decide the reference or pass the order of 20 May 2023.
A drafting point left for the State
The Court noted a further issue on the language of Section 119A, inserted by the amending Act of 1995, which speaks of an order of the ‘Prescribed Authority under section 119’ when Section 119 does not refer to a Prescribed Authority at all.
Either the words ‘under section 119’ were unnecessary or the word ‘Prescribed’ was surplusage. As the point was not directly connected to the case, the Court left it to the State respondents to examine and take necessary action.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Who decides whether a returned panchayat candidate was disqualified?
The Civil Judge, within the election petition itself, under Chapter X of the Rules of 1997.
When does the Prescribed Authority come in?
Where a sitting member becomes subject to a disqualification during his tenure.
Choosing the forum for a panchayat election challenge
- Ask when the disqualification is said to have arisen — before the election or during the tenure. That answers the forum question.
- File the election petition before the Civil Judge under Chapter X, and plead disqualification within it.
- Resist a reference out; it costs the petition its proper trial.
- Read the statute's tenses; here 'has become' decided the case.
Source. High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok, W.P. (C) No. 26 of 2023, decided August 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in