LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Urmila Deviv.State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Citation:
2026 INSC 471
Date:
11 May 2026
Reading time:
15 min read

Legal Analysis: Urmila Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 471 (Non‑Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale (Division Bench)
Date of Decision: May 11, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against an order of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing a writ petition challenging the recounting order in a Panchayat election dispute.


Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant (Urmila Devi) contested the election for the post of Gram Pradhan and lost by a margin of two votes. She filed an election petition under Section 12C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the Sub‑Divisional Officer (Prescribed Authority), alleging irregularities in counting. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 05.11.2022, allowed the election petition and ordered recounting. Recounting was held on 17.03.2023, and the appellant was declared the winner. Meanwhile, the returned candidate (respondent No.3) had filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the recounting order. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Prescribed Authority, having passed a final order on 05.11.2022 (allowing the election petition), had become functus officio and could not thereafter order recounting or declare a fresh result. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the order dated 05.11.2022 was final in nature, and distinguished its earlier judgment in Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi where a similarly worded order was held to be interim because it only directed recounting without allowing the election petition. The Court also cautioned the Prescribed Authority to be careful in future.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

  • Case Title: Urmila Devi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

  • Civil Appeal No.: 7427 of 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9638/2023)

  • Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale (Division Bench)

  • Date of Decision: May 11, 2026

  • Citation: 2026 INSC 471 (Non‑Reportable)

  • Appeal From: Judgment and order dated 29.03.2023 of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 33777 of 2022


2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved

  • Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947: Section 12C (application for questioning elections – powers of the Prescribed Authority, finality of orders, revision to District Judge)

  • Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Election Rules, 1994: Rules 104, 105, 106 (counting of votes, recounting procedure)

  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 243‑O (bar on interference in Panchayat elections except by election petition), Article 136 (special leave to appeal)

Key Precedents Cited

  1. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque & Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 1104 – Principle that once a tribunal passes a final order, it becomes functus officio and cannot exercise further jurisdiction in the matter.

  2. Parshuram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2021, decided on 23.12.2022 by Allahabad High Court) – The Prescribed Authority becomes functus officio after finally deciding an election petition and cannot pass further orders.

  3. Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi & Ors. (decided by Supreme Court in 2026 – cited in the judgment) – Distinguished on facts: where the Prescribed Authority’s order merely directed recounting without allowing the election petition, it was held to be interim. Here, the order expressly allowed the election petition, making it final.

  4. P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Ors. (1989) Supp (1) SCC 522 – Recounting cannot be ordered on vague or speculative grounds; the petition must contain specific and material allegations.


3. Relevant Facts

  • Election: Three‑tier Panchayat (Pradhan) Election, 2021 for Gram Panchayat Parauli Suhagpur, District Etah, Uttar Pradesh.

  • Candidates: Appellant (Urmila Devi), Respondent No.3 (Manoj Devi), and 18 others.

  • Result (declared after counting on 03.05.2021): Respondent No.3 declared elected with 586 votes; Appellant secured 584 votes (margin of 2 votes).

  • Election Petition (No. 2646 of 2021): Filed by Appellant before the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Aliganj (Prescribed Authority) under Section 12C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, alleging irregularities in counting, discrepancies in Forms 45 and 46, and seeking recounting.

  • Order of SDO (05.11.2022): The SDO allowed the election petition, rejected the respondent’s objections, and ordered recounting to be conducted on 07.11.2022 under the supervision of the Tehsildar. The order stated: “The petition of Smt. Urmila Devi … is allowed … Re‑counting of the post of Gram Pradhan should be done…”

  • Writ Petition by Respondent No.3 (06.11.2022): Challenged the recounting order before Allahabad High Court; interim stay granted on 12.12.2022, vacated on 15.03.2023.

  • Recounting (17.03.2023): Conducted despite stay being vacated; Appellant declared winner by 13 votes.

  • Oath (20.03.2023): Appellant took oath as Pradhan; electoral certificate issued.

  • High Court order (29.03.2023): Allowed the writ petition, set aside the SDO’s order dated 05.11.2022 and the consequential recounting and declaration of results. Held that the SDO had become functus officio after passing the final order on 05.11.2022.

  • Appeal to Supreme Court: Dismissed.


4. Issues

  1. Whether the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Sub‑Divisional Officer) was in the nature of a final order or an interim order for the purposes of determining whether the Authority became functus officio after passing it.

  2. Whether the Prescribed Authority could, after having passed the said order, subsequently order recounting and declare a fresh result.

  3. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the recounting order and setting aside the subsequent declaration of results.


5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Interpretation of the order dated 05.11.2022 – final order, not interim (Paras 17-21):

The Supreme Court examined the language of the order. It stated: “The petition of Smt. Urmila Devi … is allowed … Re‑counting … should be done.” The Court held that the order did not merely direct recounting while keeping the election petition pending; it expressly allowed the election petition. Therefore, it was a final order deciding the election petition in favour of the appellant. Once a final order is passed, the Prescribed Authority becomes functus officio (ceases to have jurisdiction) and cannot pass any further orders, including the subsequent order dated 17.03.2023 declaring the appellant as the returned candidate after recounting.

B. Distinction from Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi (Para 19-20):

The Court distinguished its own recent decision in Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi. In that case, the Prescribed Authority’s order only directed recounting and fixed a date for recounting, but did not allow the election petition. The Supreme Court had held that such an order was interim in nature. Here, the order explicitly allowed the petition, making it final. Therefore, the ratio of Raj Kumari did not apply.

C. Consequence of being functus officio – no further jurisdiction (Paras 21-22):

Once the Prescribed Authority became functus officio on 05.11.2022, it had no power to:

  • order recounting (the recounting conducted on 17.03.2023 was without jurisdiction);

  • accept the recounting report;

  • declare the appellant as the returned candidate.

The election officers appointed for recounting also could not reassume authority to declare results afresh because the power to set aside election results vests exclusively with the Prescribed Authority, and that power had already been exhausted.

D. Affirmation of High Court’s order (Para 22):

The High Court had correctly set aside the recounting order and the subsequent declaration of results. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s reasoning.

E. Caution to Prescribed Authority (Para 22):

The Court reiterated the High Court’s observation that the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate/Prescribed Authority must remain cautious while dealing with election petitions and must clearly distinguish between interim and final orders to avoid jurisdictional errors.


6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

  • The nature of an order (interim or final) under Section 12C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is determined by its language and substance. If the order “allows” the election petition, it is final, and the Prescribed Authority becomes functus officio. If it merely directs recounting without allowing the petition, it is interim.

  • A Prescribed Authority cannot pass a final order allowing the election petition and then subsequently issue further orders (such as recounting directions or fresh declaration of results). Such subsequent orders are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.

  • The principle of functus officio applies strictly in election disputes under the Panchayat Raj regime. Once the statutory authority has finally disposed of the election petition, it cannot re‑open the matter or continue proceedings.


7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

The Court carefully examined the scheme of Section 12C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It noted that the Prescribed Authority is the only forum to challenge an election. The provision gives the Authority the power to set aside the election, declare the election void, or declare another candidate elected. Once the Authority exercises that power by allowing or dismissing the election petition, its jurisdiction in that matter comes to an end.

The Court then compared the order in the present case with the order in Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi. In Raj Kumari, the order only said: “the election petition … is partially accepted. The date … is fixed for recounting of the ballot papers.” There was no final determination of the election petition; the petition remained pending for final decision after recounting. Hence, it was an interim order. In the present case, the order stated: “The petition … is allowed … Re‑counting … should be done.” The use of the word “allowed” signified a final adjudication of the petition in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the Authority became functus officio.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the order was merely directing recounting and was therefore interim. It held that the language was unambiguous – allowing the petition was a final relief, not an interim step.

The Court also noted that the narrow margin of victory (2 votes) and the discrepancies in Forms 45 and 46 might have justified recounting if it had been ordered as an interim measure without finally allowing the petition. However, the Prescribed Authority’s procedural error (passing a final order prematurely) vitiated the entire subsequent process.


8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly applies the well‑settled principle of functus officio to election disputes under the Panchayat Raj Act. It provides a clear distinction between interim orders (directing recounting while keeping the election petition pending) and final orders (allowing or dismissing the petition). This distinction will guide Prescribed Authorities and litigants in future cases. The reliance on the exact language of the order is a practical and objective test.

Potential concerns: The judgment may be seen as overly technical, as the Prescribed Authority’s substantive finding that there were irregularities and a narrow margin may have justified recounting. However, the Authority chose the wrong procedural path by passing a final order first. The Court’s strict adherence to jurisdictional limits is consistent with the statutory scheme, which requires that the election petition be decided only after full hearing, not piecemeal. The Authority could have ordered recounting as an interim measure (as in Raj Kumari) and then, after receiving the recount report, passed a final order. Its failure to do so led to the invalidation of the recounting.

Practical impact: This judgment will be heavily relied upon by election petitioners and respondents in Panchayat election disputes in Uttar Pradesh and other States with similar provisions. It clarifies that:

  • A Prescribed Authority must not allow the election petition before recounting; it should first order recounting (as an interim measure) and then pass a final order after the recount.

  • An order that uses the word “allowed” (or “dismissed”) without reserving the final decision until after recounting will be treated as final, barring any further action.

  • Candidates who obtain a recounting order that is in the nature of a final order may have that order set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.


9. Final Outcome

  • Civil Appeal dismissed.

  • The impugned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 29.03.2023 in Writ Petition No. 33777 of 2022 is upheld.

  • The order of the Prescribed Authority (Sub‑Divisional Officer, Aliganj) dated 05.11.2022, along with the consequent recounting and the declaration of results on 17.03.2023, stand set aside.

  • The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Aliganj, is cautioned to remain cautious in future while dealing with election petitions.

  • No order as to costs.


10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

  • For election petitioners in Panchayat disputes: If you file an election petition under Section 12C and seek recounting, ensure that the Prescribed Authority does not pass a final order “allowing” the petition before the recounting is conducted. Instead, request the Authority to first order recounting as an interim measure (keeping the petition pending) and then, after the recount report, pass a final order either dismissing the petition or declaring you as the returned candidate. If the Authority passes a final order prematurely, the recounting and subsequent declaration may be set aside on the ground of functus officio.

  • For election respondents: If the Prescribed Authority passes an order “allowing” the election petition and directing recounting, file a writ petition before the High Court immediately, arguing that the Authority has become functus officio and cannot proceed further. Cite this judgment and Hari Vishnu Kamath to seek quashing of the order.

  • For Prescribed Authorities (SDOs, SDMs): While hearing election petitions, be careful to distinguish between interim and final orders. If recounting is necessary, pass an order that: (i) does not use the words “allowed” or “dismissed”; (ii) only directs recounting; (iii) fixes a date for recounting; and (iv) states that the petition will be decided after receiving the recount report. This will ensure that the authority retains jurisdiction to pass a final order after recounting.


11. Court Lines

“Once the Prescribed Authority passes an order granting final relief, it is well settled in law that it ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any further order in relation to the election, as it would become functus officio in respect of the matter adjudicated.” (Para 16)

“From a bare perusal of the order of the Prescribed Authority, it is clear that it is in the nature of a final order, as it has completely allowed the application filed by the Appellant herein and, therefore, leaves no scope for passing any further order after the recounting is conducted.” (Para 20)

“The Prescribed Authority, after the recounting was completed, proceeded to pass yet another order dated 17.03.2023 … thereby declaring her as elected … Having become functus officio upon passing the order dated 05.11.2022, the Prescribed Authority could not have passed any further order or continued the proceedings.” (Para 21)

“We totally disagree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, for the simple reason that the first order was in the nature of an interim order, which was only for recounting … The final order was passed on 21.03.2024.” (Para 6 of Raj Kumari distinguished)


12. Legal Strategy Insight

  • For the election petitioner (appellant): After this judgment, if you are in a similar situation, do not accept a final order that “allows” the petition before recounting. Instead, request the Prescribed Authority to pass an interim order directing recounting and to keep the election petition pending. Use the language from Raj Kumari – “partially accepted” or “recounting ordered”. If the Authority passes a final order, immediately challenge it before the High Court only on the ground that it is final and therefore the Authority has become functus officio – that would be an error, but you may lose the recounting opportunity. Better to ensure the Authority follows the correct procedure.

  • For the election respondent: If the Prescribed Authority passes an order that uses the word “allowed” and directs recounting, immediately file a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court. Argue that the order is final, that the Authority has become functus officio, and that any subsequent recounting would be without jurisdiction. You need not wait for the recounting to be conducted. The High Court will likely quash the order and the recounting.

  • For Prescribed Authorities: To avoid reversal, follow a clear two‑step process:
    Step 1 (interim): Pass an order stating: “The application for recounting is considered. Prima facie, there appear to be discrepancies. Therefore, recounting of ballot papers is ordered on [date]. The election petition shall be listed for final orders after receiving the recount report. The petition is not finally allowed or dismissed at this stage.”
    Step 2 (final): After recounting, pass a final order either allowing the petition (if the recount changes the result) or dismissing it (if there is no change).
    Avoid using the word “allowed” or “dismissed” in the first order.

View full judgment (PDF)