Holding

A candidate disqualified under Section 45(1)(v) is deemed ineligible, and the election petitioner, being the only other contestant, is entitled to be declared duly elected as Chairman under Sections 44‑E and 44‑J, rendering the order for a fresh election erroneous.

Summary

Ramadebi Rautray contested the election of Basanti Sahoo (the respondent) as Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, alleging that the respondent was disqualified under Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 for having a third child after the statutory cut‑off date. The Election Tribunal found the respondent disqualified, declared her election void, and declared the appellant duly elected as Chairman as she had the next highest votes. The Election Appellate Tribunal upheld the disqualification but set aside the declaration of the appellant’s election, ordering a fresh election. The High Court affirmed the Appellate Tribunal’s decision. On appeal, this Court held that the statutory provisions (Sections 44‑E and 44‑J) entitle the petitioner to be declared elected when the returned candidate is disqualified, and that ordering a fresh election would be a travesty of justice. Consequently, the Court restored the Tribunal’s declaration that the appellant is the Chairman and set aside the orders for a fresh election.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent was disqualified from contesting the Panchayat Samiti election under Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959.
Whether, upon disqualification of the returned candidate, the election petitioner is entitled to be declared elected under Sections 44‑E and 44‑J of the same Act.
Whether the appellate tribunal and the High Court erred in directing a fresh election for the post of Chairman.

Legislation cited

Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959s. 44-E, s. 44-J, s. 45(1)(v)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the declaration that the election of the respondent to the post of Chairman Delang Panchayat Samiti was invalid, however, setting aside the declaration made in favour of the appellant and directing fresh election for the said post. Headnotes† Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 – ss.45(1)(v), 44-E, 44-J – Disqualification on becoming a member and continuing as a member – Election to the post of Chairman Delang Panchayat Samiti – Appellant and the

Subjects

ElectionFresh election for the postDisqualification on becoming a member and continuing as a memberElection to the post of Chairman Delang Panchayat SamitiElection to the post of Panchayat Samiti MemberDisqualification from contesting the electionBirth of a third child after the cut-off date

Judgment

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 140 : 2026 INSC 243

Ramadebi Rautray
v.
State of Odisha & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3270 of 2026)
10 March 2026
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by
the High Court upholding the declaration that the election of the
respondent to the post of Chairman Delang Panchayat Samiti
was invalid, however, setting aside the declaration made in favour
of the appellant directing her appointment as the Chairman, and
directing fresh election for the said post.

Headnotes†
Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 – ss.45(1)(v), 44-E, 44-J –
Disqualification on becoming a member and continuing as a
member – Election to the post of Chairman Delang Panchayat
Samiti – Appellant and the respondent, both members of
Panchayat Samitis contested the election and respondent
declared elected – Appellant challenged the election of the
respondent as the Panchayat Samiti Member and Chairman
u/s.45(1)(v) on the ground that she was disqualified from
contesting the said election, as she had given birth to a third
child after the cut-off date – Tribunal allowed the election
petition declaring the election of the respondent-returned
candidate to both the post as void, and declared the appellant
to be the Chairman being the candidate who secured next
highest number of votes – Respondent filed an appeal –
Appellate tribunal upheld the declaration that the election of
the respondent was invalid, however, the declaration made
in favour of the appellant directing her appointment as the
Chairman set aside, and directed fresh election for the said
post – High Court upheld the judgment of the appellate
tribunal – Challenge to:
Held: Decision of the tribunal, as affirmed by the appellate tribunal
and the High Court, disqualifying the respondent-returned candidate,

* Author
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 141

Ramadebi Rautray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

does not require any interference whatsoever, because from the
material available on record, it is clear that the respondent failed to
cross-examine the appellant-election petitioner and her witnesses,
despite ample opportunities having been granted to her – Appellant
having led clinching evidence remained uncontroverted of facts
necessary to prove the disqualification – With the disqualification of
the respondent having been affirmed, no other contestant except the
appellant remained in fray for the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti, as only the respondent and the appellant had
contested the said election – Elections were held way back in the
year 2022, process of adjudication of the election petition, the appeal
and the writ petition consumed more than 3 years – If at this stage,
the appellant is deprived of the fruits of her successful challenge
to the election of the respondent, by asking her to contest a fresh
election, that would amount to a travesty of justice – Thus, the
declaration made by the tribunal, to the effect that the appellant
was duly elected as the Chairman and directing her appointment
to the said post is just, legal and equitable – Appellate tribunal
erred in reversing the said declaration on the premise that other
members of the Delang Panchayat Samiti should be given an
opportunity to contest for the post of Chairman – High Court too,
erred in affirming the same to that extent – For election to the post
of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, only the appellant
and the respondent had contested and hence setting aside of the
declaration issued by the tribunal in favour of the appellant, wholly
unwarranted and uncalled for – Impugned judgment passed by the
appellate tribunal, and by the High Court, to the extent that the
appellant has been deprived of the consequential declaratory relief
of being elected as the Chairman, set aside – Direction given by
the tribunal declaring the appellant elected to the post of Chairman
of the Delang Panchayat Samiti restored. [Paras 19, 20, 23-28]

List of Acts
Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959.

List of Keywords
Election; Fresh election for the post; Disqualification on becoming
a member and continuing as a member; Election to the post
of Chairman Delang Panchayat Samiti; Election to the post of
Panchayat Samiti Member; Disqualification from contesting the
election; Birth of a third child after the cut-off date.
142 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
C I V I L A P P E L L AT E J U R I S D I C T I O N : C i v i l A p p e a l N o .
3270 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2025 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in WPC No. 5196 of 2025
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3528 of 2026

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Kedar Nath Tripathy, Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Umakant Misra,
Tushar Garg, Ms. Prabhati Nayak, Debabrata Dash.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 4129 of 2026

1. Heard. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal by special leave arises from the common
judgment and order dated 15th December, 2025 passed by the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack1 in W.P. (C) No. 5565 of 2025 filed by
the appellant, Ramadebi Rautray2, and W.P.(C) No. 5196 of 2025,
filed by the respondent, Basanti Sahoo3, whereby the High Court
dismissed both the writ petitions and upheld the order of the Court
of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri4, disqualifying the
respondent-returned candidate from the post of Panchayat Samiti
Member, Harirajpur Gram Panchayat as well as of Chairman of the
Delang Panchayat Samiti and directing re-election for the said post.

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant-election petitioner”.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as the “respondent-returned candidate”.
4 Hereinafter, referred to as the “Election Appellate Tribunal”.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 143

Ramadebi Rautray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

I. BRIEF FACTS
3. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the
appeal are as below.
4. The appellant-election petitioner and the respondent-returned
candidate contested the elections for the post of Panchayat Samiti
Member, Delang Kothabad Gram Panchayat, and Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat, respectively, in the year 2022. Both were duly elected
as members from their respective constituencies.
5. Pursuant to being elected as members of Panchayat Samitis, both the
appellant-election petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
contested the election for the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti. It is important to note here that the appellant-
election petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate were the
only two contestants for the post of Chairman. The respondent-
returned candidate was declared elected, whereas the appellant-
election petitioner lost the election for the post of Chairman.
6. The appellant-election petitioner instituted Election Misc. Case
No. 01 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Pipili5 challenging the election of respondent-returned candidate
as the Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram Panchayat and
Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, on the ground that she
was disqualified from contesting the said election, as she had given
birth to a third child after the cut-off date and hence, she was barred
from contesting the election to the post of Panchayat Samiti Member,
Harirajpur Gram Panchayat in view of the embargo contained in
Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 19596.
7. In the proceedings before the Election Tribunal, the appellant-election
petitioner examined herself as PW-1, and two more witnesses were
examined in support of her case. Ten documents were produced and
exhibited in order to substantiate the plea that the respondent-returned
candidate stood disqualified on the ground of having a third child
born to her after the cut-off date. The respondent-returned candidate,
despite being afforded ample opportunities, neither cross-examined
the appellant-election petitioner and her witnesses, nor did she lead

5 Hereinafter, referred to as the “Election Tribunal”.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as the “1959 Act”.
144 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

any evidence in her own defense. Consequently, the evidence of the
appellant-election petitioner remained uncontroverted.
8. The election petition was allowed by the Election Tribunal, declaring
the election of the respondent-returned candidate as Panchayat
Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram Panchayat to be invalid and as a
consequence, her election to the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti was also declared to be void.
9. The Election Tribunal also passed a consequential order in favour of
the appellant-election petitioner and declared her to be the Chairman
of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, being the candidate who secured next
highest number of votes. The competent authority was accordingly
directed to fill up the post of the Chairman of the Delang Panchayat
Samiti by appointing the appellant-election petitioner to the said post.
10. Being aggrieved, the respondent-returned candidate preferred
Election Appeal No.10/3 of 2024 before the Election Appellate
Tribunal. The said appeal was disposed of by upholding the declaration
of the Election Tribunal that the election of the respondent-returned
candidate as Panchayat Samiti Member of the Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat was invalid. However, the consequential declaration made
in favour of the appellant-election petitioner directing her appointment
as the Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, was set aside.
The Election Appellate Tribunal accordingly directed fresh election
for the said post.
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the Election Appellate Tribunal, both the
appellant-election petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
filed writ petitions7 before the High Court. The appellant-election
petitioner challenged the direction for fresh election to the post of
Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, whereas the respondent-
returned candidate assailed the finding whereby she had been
disqualified from holding the office of Panchayat Samiti Member,
Harirajpur Gram Panchayat and that of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti. The High Court, by the impugned judgment,
dismissed both the writ petitions and upheld the judgment of the
Election Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, both the appellant
and the respondent are before this Court by way of separate special
leave petitions.

7 W.P. (C) No. 5565 of 2025 (filed by appellant-election petitioner); W.P.(C) No. 5196 of 2025 (filed by
respondent-returned candidate).
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 145

Ramadebi Rautray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

II. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED
12. Shri Umakant Misra, learned counsel representing the appellant-
election petitioner, urged that the plea taken by the respondent-
returned candidate that she was not granted an opportunity to
defend herself is wholly unfounded. He referred to the findings
recorded in paragraph 12 of the High Court judgment, wherein
reference has been made to the proceeding sheets of the Election
Tribunal, and submitted that ample opportunities had been provided
to the respondent-returned candidate to contest the case and to
cross-examine the witnesses. However, she did not avail of such
opportunities and her endeavour was aimed at delaying the disposal
of the election petition.
13. He further submitted that the evidence of the appellant-election
petitioner, examined as PW-1, was not completed on a single day
but was deferred on several dates at the request of the respondent-
returned candidate. However, when cross-examination was not
conducted and the proceedings were sought to be lingered on, the
cross-examination was closed by the Election Tribunal. The order
closing cross-examination of the witnesses was never challenged
thereafter and has thus attained finality. Similar was the situation for
the other witnesses examined by the appellant-election petitioner.
Thus, the case set up by the appellant-election petitioner seeking
disqualification of the respondent-returned candidate on the ground
of having a third child born to her after the cut-off date remained
uncontroverted leading to the inevitable consequence of voiding of
respondent-returned candidate election as Panchayat Samiti Member,
Harirajpur Gram Panchayat and consequently as Chairman of the
Delang Panchayat Samiti.
14. Shri Misra further submitted that the Election Appellate Tribunal as well
as the High Court fell into grave error in denying the consequential
relief of appointment to the post of Chairman to the appellant-election
petitioner. He urged that Section 45(1)(v) of the 1959 Act, which
provides for disqualification on the ground of having more than two
children, once attracted, renders the returned candidate statutorily
disqualified from holding the office. It was urged that where a returned
candidate suffers from such a statutory disqualification, the election
petitioner is entitled as of right to seek setting aside of the election
146 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the disqualified candidate along with consequential reliefs flowing
therefrom. He further urged that the provisions of the 1959 Act, more
particularly, Sections 44-E and 44-J aim to provide an effective and
meaningful remedy in election disputes so as to avoid unnecessary
elections where the outcome is effectively determinable on the basis
of the votes already polled. In the present case, only the appellant-
election petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate contested
the election for the post of Chairman. He thus contended that once
the election of the respondent-returned candidate was set aside,
the only permissible and natural consequence was to declare the
appellant-election petitioner elected to the post of Chairman, as she
had secured the next highest number of valid votes.
15. Per contra, Shri Kedar Nath Tripathy, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-returned candidate, vehemently and fervently
contended that: (i) the Election Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to
try the election petition filed by the appellant-election petitioner; and
(ii) the respondent-returned candidate was not afforded adequate
opportunity to contest the election petition and to adduce evidence
in her defense.
16. He further submitted that, as a matter of fact, only one child was
born to the respondent-returned candidate, whereas the other two
children were born from her husband’s first marriage and thus, she
was wrongly and unjustly declared disqualified from the posts.

III. ANALYSIS
17. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned
orders.
18. The issue of jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal was not seriously
contested by the respondent-returned candidate on any valid legal
ground and thus, the same does not merit consideration.
19. So far as the decision of the Election Tribunal, as affirmed by the
Election Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, disqualifying the
respondent-returned candidate is concerned, the same does not
require any interference whatsoever, because manifestly, from the
material available on record, it is clear that the respondent-returned
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 147

Ramadebi Rautray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

candidate failed to cross-examine the appellant-election petitioner and
her witnesses, despite ample opportunities having been granted to her.
20. It is apparent that, by avoiding cross-examination of the witnesses,
the respondent-returned candidate was attempting to buy time and
defer the inevitable consequence i.e., declaration of her election
as Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram Panchayat, invalid
on account of the disqualification contained in Section 45(1)(v) of
the 1959 Act. The appellant-election petitioner having led clinching
evidence (which remained uncontroverted) of facts necessary to
prove such disqualification, the necessary consequence was the
disqualification of the respondent-returned candidate. Hence, the
three concurrent findings of the Election Tribunal, Election Appellate
Tribunal, and the High Court on this aspect require no interference
of this Court.
21. Insofar as the claim of the appellant-election petitioner for the post of
Chairman is concerned, reference may be gainfully made to Sections
44-E and 44-J of the 1959 Act, which read as follows:
“Section 44-E. Relief that may be claimed by the
petitioner. –
A petitioner may, in addition to claiming a
declaration that the election of all or any
of the returned candidates is void, claim a
further declaration that he himself or any
other candidate, has been duly elected.
Section 44-J. Decision of Civil Judge (Senior Division). –
(1) If the Civil Judge (Senior Division), after
making such enquiry, as he deems necessary,
finds in respect of any person whose election is
called in question by a petition that his election
was valid, he shall dismiss the petition as
against such person and may award costs at
his discretion.
(2) If the Civil Judge (Senior Division) finds
that the election of any person was invalid, it
shall either-
148 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(a) declare that a casual vacancy to
have been created; or
(b) declare another candidate to
have been duly elected;
whichever course appears, in the circumstances
of the case to be more appropriate and in either
case, may award costs at his discretion.
(3) In the event of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) declaring a casual vacancy to have
been created, it shall direct the Collector of the
district or such other authority prescribed in this
behalf to take proceedings for filling the vacancy.
(4) All orders of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
shall, subject to any order passed in an appeal,
if any, be final and conclusive:”
(Emphasis supplied)

22. A plain reading of Sections 44-E and 44-J of the 1959 Act makes it
amply clear that the former provision permits the election petitioner to
claim relief not only for having the election of the returned candidate
declared invalid, but also for declaring the election petitioner duly
elected to the post. The latter provision, i.e., Section 44-J(2)(b),
confers jurisdiction upon the Civil Judge/Election Tribunal to declare
any other candidate as duly elected in cases where the election of
the originally returned candidate is found to be invalid.
23. Indisputably, in the present case, the appellant-election petitioner
and the respondent-returned candidate were the only two contesting
candidates for the post of Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti.
With the disqualification of the respondent-returned candidate having
been affirmed, no other contestant except the appellant-election
petitioner remained in fray for the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti, as only the respondent-returned candidate and
the appellant-election petitioner had contested the said election.
24. It is noteworthy that the elections were held way back in the year 2022.
The process of adjudication of the election petition, the appeal and
the writ petition consumed more than 3 years. Thus, in our opinion,
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 149

Ramadebi Rautray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

if at this stage, the appellant-election petitioner is deprived of the
fruits of her successful challenge to the election of the respondent-
returned candidate, by asking her to contest a fresh election, that
would amount to a travesty of justice.
25. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the declaration
made by the Election Tribunal, to the effect that the appellant-election
petitioner was duly elected as the Chairman of the Delang Panchayat
Samiti and directing her appointment to the said post is just, legal
and equitable. The Election Appellate Tribunal fell into clear error in
reversing the said declaration on the premise that other members of
the Delang Panchayat Samiti should be given an opportunity to contest
for the post of Chairman. The High Court too, erred in affirming the
judgment of the Election Appellate Tribunal to that extent.
26. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that, for election to the post
of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, only the appellant-
election petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate had
contested and hence setting aside of the declaration issued by the
Election Tribunal in favour of the appellant-election petitioner on the
premise that an opportunity should be given to other members of the
Delang Panchayat Samiti, was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for.

IV. CONCLUSION
27. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 3rd February, 2025
passed by the Election Appellate Tribunal, and the judgment dated
15th December, 2025 passed by the High Court, to the extent that the
appellant-election petitioner has been deprived of the consequential
declaratory relief of being elected as the Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti, are hereby set aside.
28. Resultantly, the direction issued by the Election Appellate Tribunal
declaring a casual vacancy for the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti is also set aside. The direction given by the
Election Tribunal declaring the appellant-election petitioner elected
to the post of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti is restored.
Consequential steps for compliance be taken within two weeks from
today.
29. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Cost made easy.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
150 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 3528 OF 2026
31. In view of the findings recorded by us by allowing Civil Appeal @
SLP(Civil) No. 4129 of 2026, the special leave petition preferred by
the petitioner herein fails and is hereby dismissed. Cost made easy.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
Special Leave Petition dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain