Punjab and Haryana High Court slams state for misconduct in Panchayat election

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the state of Punjab for its handling of the Panchayat election, specifically citing arbitrary rejections of nomination papers and alleged coercion of candidates. Referring to “blatant abuse on the part of state machinery", the bench observed that prescribed procedures mandate that a candidate must be given a chance to correct errors in their nomination papers and receive a notice specifying the time and place for scrutiny.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil and Justice Deepak Gupta asserted the state counsel, when questioned by the court, failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the petitioners were afforded the opportunity. The Returning Officer present in the courtroom initially claimed that the petitioners were notified, but failed to produce any documented proof. The court asserted: “On asking to show the said notice, same could not be produced from the original file,” and further observed that there was no indication or signatures on record to confirm the petitioners’ presence at the time of scrutiny.

Emphasising statutory provisions, the bench asserted: “The grounds on which nomination papers of the petitioners have been rejected do not exist either under Section 38 or Section 39 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act of 1994.”

The bench added lack of adherence to legal provisions during scrutiny raised serious concerns over the fairness of the election process. The court also pointed out that allegations of forced or manipulated withdrawal of candidature were not isolated incidents, as candidates who were allegedly unopposed were declared winners prematurely. Photographs were submitted by the petitioners showing the winning candidates “being garlanded by the present Chief Minister or standing in the company of MLAs of the ruling party.” The bench asserted, “Even in the case of no other candidate in fray except one, he cannot be declared unopposed prior to the date of polling,” which is scheduled for October 15.

Underlining the importance of allowing voters to express their choice, including the option for NOTA, the bench observed: “The declaration of certain candidates as unopposed without going to the date of polling takes away voters’ right to not vote for any candidate, which has been considered extremely important in democracy by the Hon’ble Apex Court.”

Referring to specific instances where the rejection of nomination papers was based on the non-submission of a ‘No Dues Certificate’ (NDC) or ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC), the Court found the rejections unjustified. Citing a directive issued by the State Election Commission on September 26, the court added that candidates unable to obtain such certificates could submit an affidavit, asserting their non-indebtedness. The directive required the Returning Officer to forward the affidavit to the concerned authority for verification within 24 hours. If no response was received within that timeframe, it was to be assumed that the candidate was compliant with the Act’s provisions.

Addressing the preliminary objections regarding the writ petitions’ maintainability, the Court reiterated that the power of judicial review is a fundamental aspect of India’s Constitution. The bench added: “The bar to interfere by the courts in election matters in writ jurisdiction would not cover the original, inherent, and discretionary jurisdiction, which is unlimited with the high courts.”

The bench asserted its authority to intervene by stating, “In the instant case, the mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power by the statutory body is evident at the stage of filing and scrutiny of nomination papers, whereas elections are yet to be held on October 15.”

The court also condemned instances of alleged misconduct by government officials, including the destruction and disappearance of nomination papers. Observing that such actions appeared to align with the interests of the ruling party, the bench stated, “Nomination papers have not been accepted and torn by the Government officials working at the whims and fancies of the governing party.”

The court also flagged the alleged acceptance of male candidates’ nomination papers for seats reserved for women, as well as the premature declarations of unopposed victories. Drawing attention to the sanctity of elections, the bench remarked: “Ours is a democratic country which is all about having choice with free will, and such choice can only be expressed by using this statutory right to vote.”

The court further stated that the state’s actions appeared to be “an attempt to destroy the basic structure of our Constitution i.e., free and fair elections,” which undermined “the right of an elector to use it without fear of duress or coercion.” In its interim order, the court stayed further proceedings related to the Panchayat election involved in these petitions until October 16.