Coin-toss sarpanch election decision? Punjab High Court rules it out

Employing the toss system to break a tie in the election has failed to find favour with the Punjab and Haryana High court.

Dismissing a petition challenging the declaration of a sarpanch election result, a Division Bench asserted that such a practice was a deviation from the prescribed rules under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, and the Punjab Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994.

The assertion by the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma came on a petition filed by Palwinder Singh seeking directions to the State of Punjab and other respondents to appoint him as sarpanch of Pandori Takhtmal village in Tarn Taran district.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner, contesting the sarpanch election in October, was initially declared the winner by two votes with 247 out of 540 votes cast. He contended that opponent Gurjinder Singh, in connivance with the ruling party MLA, came to the polling booth and forcibly “changed the election result by capturing all votes”.

The result was later overturned and Gurjinder Singh was declared elected after the returning officer reportedly resolved the tie through a coin toss.

In its order, the Bench noted that a tie must be resolved through a draw of lots under Rule 35 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Election Rules and not by tossing a coin. The Bench expressed its concern that the returning officer's deviation from this rule cast doubt on the fairness of the election process.

The Bench also took note of the petitioner argument that the SDM-cum-Election Returning Officer in inquiry report dated October 17 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Officer specifically stated that the “RO concerned has not played a clear and impartial role”.

The court, at the same time, clarified that the adjudication of such allegations fells within the purview of an election tribunal, as provided under Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act. It reiterated that challenges to election results must be resolved through the filing of an election petition before the designated tribunal, which held exclusive authority to either declare an election result void or confirm its validity after considering evidence and arguments.

Dismissing the petition, the Bench observed that the petitioner had “ill-chosen to avail the writ remedy” despite having an alternative statutory remedy of filing an election petition before the designated election tribunal.

“This Court declares the instant petition to be, at this stage, prematurely instituted besides being a mis-constituted remedy,” the Bench ruled.