High Court clears way for Punjab panchayat poll, dismisses pleas on nomination irregularities

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today cleared the way for the Panchayat election in Punjab by dismissing a bunch of petitions alleging irregularities in the nomination process. The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma came out with the order after extensive hearing that spanned pre- and post-lunch sessions. In all, more than 800 petitions were placed before the bench for adjudication – the maximum ever in an election matter in recallable past.

The ruling, delivered just a day before the scheduled polls, effectively allows the elections to proceed as planned. This judgment is significant, as it impacts the fate of approximately 1.05 lakh candidates contesting for the posts of panches and sarpanches.

The state’s stand in the matter, as reflected from the arguments of Punjab Advocate-General Gurminder Singh was that the Article 243-O imposed a complete bar on the court’s intervention in election matters after the commencement of the poll process.

Appearing before bench, Gurminder Singh referred to a plethora of judgments to say: “There is a bar. No election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under the law”.

Responding to a court query, Gurminder Singh also told the bench that the principles of natural justice on giving the candidates an opportunity of hearing while rejecting their nomination papers was not envisaged in the Punjab Panchayat Raj Act. The only requirement was to record as brief statement. He added that due process of law was followed during the process.

The counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, insisted that the court could intervene and there was no legal provision whatsoever that barred the courts from intervening in the matter. The bench was told that the nomination papers were rejected without ascribing reasons. Only one word “rejected” was mentioned in the order.

The bench was also told that the nomination papers were rejected on frivolous grounds. In more than a few cases, the nominations of all except one candidate was rejected and he was declared elected unopposed. They added that elections were still required to be held as NOTA was a viable option available to the voters. Both the sides relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in the Ladakh matter.