Article 226 in election disputes may survive alternative remedies, but unsupported voter confusion cannot justify countermanding an election.

Article 226 remained available in election-related disputes despite an alternative statutory remedy under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, because judicial review may still lie in exceptional circumstances where the election process itself is alleged to be vitiated. The non-joinder of elected office bearers was not fatal where their interests were adequately represented and no prejudice was shown. On the merits, a finding of voter confusion could not support countermanding the election when the electorate was small, the rival factions had clearly stated their positions, and the record did not credibly support the allegation that voters stayed away because of confusion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the election were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, and whether the absence of the elected office bearers as parties was fatal; (ii) whether the finding of confusion among voters and the consequent countermanding of the election held on 19 December 2005 could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the election were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, and whether the absence of the elected office bearers as parties was fatal.

Analysis: The judgment held that the scope of Article 226 is wide and is not ousted merely because an election petition or other statutory remedy exists. Judicial review may still be exercised where exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are shown, especially where the election process itself is alleged to be vitiated. The Court also held that the interests of the elected members were adequately represented before the Court and that their non-joinder had caused no prejudice sufficient to defeat the writ petitions.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable, and the objection based on non-joinder of the elected office bearers failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of confusion among voters and the consequent countermanding of the election held on 19 December 2005 could be sustained.

Analysis: The Court found that the electoral college consisted of only 50 members and that the rival factions had taken clear and repeated stands regarding the election date. In such a small and identifiable electorate, the plea that 15 members stayed away because of confusion was held to be untenable. Once the learned Single Judge had accepted the legality of convening the election, the further finding that the election should be countermanded for confusion could not stand.

Conclusion: The finding of confusion was rejected and the order setting aside the election could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal court upheld the legality of the election process and interfered with the judgment under challenge only to the extent necessary to restore the election results.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 can be invoked in election-related disputes involving exceptional circumstances despite an available statutory remedy, but a countermanding order cannot stand on a plea of confusion unsupported by the record, especially in a small electorate where the alleged confusion is not credible.

---