Decide on videography of civic body poll: HC to election panel

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the feasibility, viability and necessity of videography during the municipal poll was within the State Election Commission’s exclusive domain. The assertion came as a Division Bench of the high court directed the commission to decide a plea for carrying out videography of the entire election process, preferably before the poll programme’s publication.

Apprehensions after panchayat poll

A Bench observed that a petition has been filed as a public interest litigation expressing apprehension that certain illegalities and irregularities were noticed in the panchayat poll by the high court

The direction by the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal came on a petition filed against the state of Punjab and another respondent by Kuljinder Singh through counsel Saurav Bhatia, Parambir Singh, HPS Bunger and Nitin Chaudhary.

The Bench observed that the petition was filed as a public interest litigation expressing apprehension that certain illegalities and irregularities were noticed in the panchayat poll by the high court on the judicial side, although all petitions in the matter were dismissed.

The same illegalities and irregularities might crop up in the forthcoming municipal elections in the state, for which the election programme was likely to be issued in near future. The prayer was for the videography of the entire election process from the stage of filing nomination papers till the result declaration.

The Bench asserted: “This court is afraid that the aspect of feasibility, viability and necessity of videography lies within the exclusive domain of the State Election Commission, which is responsible for superintendence, giving directions and controlling the entire election process from the stage of preparation of electoral rolls till polling and declaration of results qua various municipal bodies in terms of Section 3 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994.”

The Bench added that the petitioner, as such, was free to raise his grievance before the commission. The court also took note of the petitioner’s submission that a representation in this regard had already been made before the State Election Commission.

“This court disposes of this public interest litigation, without commenting upon the merits of the case, with a direction to the State Election Commission, Punjab, to decide the petitioner’s representation preferably before publication of the election programme,” the Bench concluded.