High Court orders videography for Panchayat election in Punjab

In a move aimed at enhancing transparency and fairness in upcoming Panchayat elections, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed videography during both polling and vote counting in gram panchayats referred to in 22 petitions before the court.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl and Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also made it clear that the proceedings, both inside and outside polling booths, would be recorded and preserved for three years from the date of polling.

“We are of the opinion that proper videography of the proceedings, at the time of polling and counting of votes with respect to elections for the posts of sarpanches and panches of the gram panchayats, regarding which the present writ petitions have been filed, would sub serve the purpose of free and fair election and would also facilitate its completion in a fair manner,” the Bench asserted.

Laying down the procedure, the court directed the deputy commissioner-cum-district election officer concerned and the Punjab State Election Commission to ensure thorough videography coverage. The Senior Superintendent of Police concerned was also instructed to provide adequate security to maintain order during the elections.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, also referred to the full Bench ruling in the case of “Prithvi Raj versus State Election Commission, Punjab” and the Division Bench judgment in the matter of “Manjinder Singh versus State of Punjab”, which underscored the role of videography in ensuring transparency in elections at the grassroots level.

Among other things, it said: “It is desirable that proper videography of the proceedings at the time of counting of votes is done to maintain transparency and fairness in the election at grassroots level”.

The directions come at a time when the high court has already 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,” another high court Bench had earlier 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.

Emphasizing 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.