Election process immune from judicial interference once commenced: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a bunch of petitions challenging the delimitation of municipal corporation wards after making it clear that the election process is immune from judicial interference once commenced.

The Bench ruled any grievance relating to irregularities during elections, including delimitation exercises, could not be entertained once the election schedule was announced. Such disputes were required to be raised only through election petitions before the Election Tribunal after the declaration of results.

“The State counsel has also placed on record the copy of the order dated December 8 by the State Election Commission, Punjab, whereby the schedule for the elections to various Municipal Corporations, Councils, and Nagar Panchayats, in the State of Punjab has been announced. Therefore, the breaches, if any, to the Rules (supra) by the competent authority in the latter making de-limitation of wards also cannot undo the announced election programme,” the Bench added.

Referring to judgments by the Supreme Court in the matter of “N.P. Ponnuswami versus Returning Officer” and “Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner”, the Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma reiterated that judicial intervention during the election process would violate the constitutional principles of expeditious elections. The court held that delays could disrupt the democratic process and render elections ineffective.

The court also noted that any alleged irregularities were required to be addressed under the statutory framework post-election. Significance should not be attached to issues that did not affect the election process directly, the Bench observed, adding that even claims of disenfranchisement or flawed voter lists must be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal.

The court further stated that the delimitation exercise, conducted in line with draft rules and demographic evaluations, was compliant with legal and constitutional mandates.

Pointing at the constitutional mandate under Article 243U, the Bench observed it required timely elections upon the expiry of elected bodies. Any interference with the election schedule would contravene these provisions. The court also noted the importance of delimitation and reservation rosters in ensuring adequate representation and effective governance.

Dismissing the petitions, the court maintained that any grievance, if proven, could only be remedied through an election petition filed before the designated tribunal. Among others, the Bench was assisted in the matter by senior advocates Jai Vir Yadav and Pawan Kumar with Vidushi Kumar.