In a striking observation during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL), the Uttarakhand High Court questioned whether an Additional District Magistrate (ADM) lacking proficiency in English can effectively discharge executive responsibilities.
The incident occurred when the ADM, who is also the Electoral Registration Officer for Nainital, responded in Hindi during court proceedings. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Guhanathan Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra asked the officer why he wasn’t responding in English. The ADM stated that while he understood English, he could not speak it fluently.
The bench then directed the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to examine whether an officer holding an executive post like that of an ADM can function effectively without knowledge of English. Both officials have been asked to appear via video conferencing at the next hearing on July 28 to respond to the query.
The proceedings took place in the context of a PIL filed by Akash Bora, a resident of Budhlakot village in Nainital district, challenging the inclusion of outsiders in the voter list for the upcoming panchayat elections. The petitioner alleged that 82 names in the voter roll belonged to individuals from outside the gram sabha, including people from Odisha, Delhi, Haridwar, and Haldwani.
Bora had earlier lodged a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), following which a fact-finding committee was formed. The committee confirmed that 18 of the listed individuals were indeed outsiders. However, despite this finding, their names were not removed from the final voter list.
The petitioner later submitted an additional list of 30 more outsiders allegedly included in the voter roll. He claimed that repeated complaints yielded no corrective action.
The High Court also took a stern view of the process adopted by election officials and asked the State Election Commission to clarify the criteria used to identify voters as residents. The bench remarked that under the Panchayati Raj Act, documents like birth and death certificates carry more legal weight than the family register, which was used in this case.
The matter is part of a larger series of legal challenges to the panchayat electoral process, with over 25 petitions reportedly filed on related issues.
