Basanti Sahoo v. Ramadebi Routray (Rautray)
Background
This Special Leave Petition (filed by Basanti Sahoo, the "respondent-returned candidate" whose election was under challenge) was heard and disposed of together with a connected Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4129/2026) filed by Ramadebi Rautray, the rival election petitioner. Both had been elected Panchayat Samiti members in 2022 and were the only two contestants for the post of Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti, which Basanti Sahoo won. Rautray successfully challenged Sahoo's election before the Election Tribunal on the ground that Sahoo was disqualified under Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 for having a third child after the cut-off date; the Election Tribunal not only invalidated Sahoo's election but also declared Rautray duly elected as Chairman, a declaration the Election Appellate Tribunal and the High Court later set aside in favour of a fresh election.
Decision Breakdown
In the connected Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court held that since Rautray and Sahoo were the only two contestants for the Chairman's post, and Sahoo's disqualification had been conclusively affirmed, no other candidate remained in the fray, so Sections 44-E and 44-J(2)(b) of the 1959 Act empowered the Election Tribunal to directly declare Rautray duly elected rather than ordering a fresh election. The Court found that after more than three years of litigation, forcing Rautray to contest a fresh election despite her successful challenge would be a travesty of justice, and restored the Election Tribunal's original declaration in her favour. As a direct consequence of allowing that connected appeal, the Court held that Basanti Sahoo's own Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 3528/2026), filed to challenge the same set of findings, had no independent merit and dismissed it, with costs made easy.
Lesson Learnt
In an election dispute involving only two contesting candidates, once the winning candidate is validly disqualified, the tribunal can directly declare the sole remaining contestant elected instead of ordering a fresh election, especially where years of litigation have already passed and a re-election would unfairly deny the successful challenger the fruits of her case.