HC quashes SEC’s directive, directs unopposed victory of candidate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a directive issued by the State Election Commission (SEC) cancelling the panchayat poll for Chak Haraj village in Ferozepur district. The court found that the SEC had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening in an election matter that rightfully belonged to the Election Tribunal under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that the SEC’s cancellation of the elections was based on allegedly improper rejection of certain candidates’ nominations. These candidates had approached the SEC after their nominations were dismissed by the returning officer, alleging that the rejections were “malicious”. Acting on this claim, the SEC cancelled the poll, initially scheduled for October 15, leaving petitioner Simarpreet Kaur—the sole remaining candidate—unable to proceed unopposed for the sarpanch post.

“The impugned order dated October 11 is hereby quashed and set aside, but with a mandamus upon the respondents concerned to forthwith declare the petitioner to be elected unopposed as sarpanch of Chak Haraj village, Mamdot tehsil, Ferozepur district, given the petitioner being the only candidate left in the fray for the post of sarpanch,” the Bench asserted.

Referring to Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, the court asserted that only the Election Tribunal held the authority to invalidate an election based on improper rejection of nominations. The provision stipulated that grievances concerning such procedural irregularities must be pursued through an election petition filed with the Election Tribunal, not through direct intervention by the SEC. The court, as such, held that the SEC lacked the authority to cancel the election.

In its detailed order, the Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of “NP Ponnuswami versus the returning officer, Namakkal constituency and others, which mandates non-interference in the election process until completion.

The Bench was of the view that the Supreme Court had long held that election-related disputes should be deferred until the election concluded to ensure that electoral proceedings were not delayed or disrupted by interim interventions.

The court further emphasised that the SEC’s order encroached upon powers vested exclusively in the Election Tribunal and, to an extent, the State Government under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. By sidestepping these authorities and cancelling the election unilaterally, the SEC not only violated jurisdictional boundaries but also deprived the petitioner of her right to proceed as an unopposed candidate.