The Supreme Court today (November 18), while refusing to interfere in pleas alleging irregularities in Punjab Gram Panchayat elections, directed the Election Tribunal to decide upon the election petitions within six months. The Court also allowed petitioners whose nominations were rejected to file a review petition before the High Court to challenge the elections.
A bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a batch of petitions against the High Court’s order dismissing over 800 pleas alleging arbitrary rejection of nomination papers filed by candidates. Initially, a High Court vacation bench had stayed the election proceedings, observing that candidates were declared winners “unopposed” even before the elections began, due to the arbitrary rejection of others’ nomination papers. However, the stay was later vacated by another bench, stating that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked, even if nominations were improperly rejected, and that filing an election petition was the appropriate remedy.
Previously, the Supreme Court under former CJI DY Chandrachud had refused to pass a stay order, allowing the elections to proceed on October 15. On October 18, the Court issued notice in one of the petitions titled Sunita Rani and Ors v. State of Punjab.
During today’s hearing, CJI Khanna criticized the State Authorities for seeking a preponed hearing of the matter in the High Court without notifying the petitioners. He expressed concern about the large number of cases, stating, “836 people being moved out—this is something unimaginable. I have never seen such figures!” The Advocate General of Punjab, Gurminder Singh, countered by pointing out that there are over 13,000 gram panchayats in the State, and only a fraction of candidates had approached the Court. He also revealed that around 3,000 candidates were elected unopposed, to which the CJI remarked that “3000 is a substantial number.”
The bench directed the election tribunal under the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, to decide election petitions within six months without interference from the State Government. It warned of potential costs on election officers if proceedings are unnecessarily delayed.
The Court also allowed petitioners whose nominations were arbitrarily rejected or who were prevented from filing them to move a review petition before the High Court within a month. It clarified that such petitions would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and must be decided as per law.
Referring to a previous order issued by the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, the Court stated, “We maintain consistency, and are not inclined to proceed further. Petitioners can file election petitions, and if there are delays, they can approach the High Court for directions to the tribunal.”
The Court emphasized that it is the right of petitioners to move the Supreme Court if the High Court dismisses their cases.
Case Details:
Sunita Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 25527/2024
Balwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 27178/2024
Lawcutor 