Back
P&H Refuses to Halt Punjab Municipal Polls: Ballot Paper Usage Permissible Under 1994 Rules
In a significant ruling, the of Punjab and Haryana has declined to interfere with the ’s decision to utilize traditional ballot papers for the upcoming municipal corporation and council elections in Punjab. The bench, presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, emphasized that existing legal frameworks explicitly permit the use of ballot boxes, while also noting that the petitions were filed at an stage of the election process that precluded
The Backdrop: EVMs vs. Traditional Ballots The challenge brought before the court centered on the ’s (SEC) move to conduct local body polls using ballot papers and ballot boxes rather than Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The petitioners argued that shifting back to the traditional mode violated the legal standards set by the in , which cautioned against a regression in electoral technology.
The petitioners sought to anchor their argument in , contending that the provision effectively mandates the use of EVMs. They further alleged a lack of effort by the State to procure sufficient EVMs from the
A Tug-of-War Over Logistics The proceedings highlighted a notable "blame game" between the and the regarding the availability and specific models of EVMs. However, the declined to adjudicate on these procedural frictions, opting instead to focus on the statutory intent behind the municipal rules.
Representing the State, , along with the SEC’s counsel, argued that the petitions lacked the credentials of a genuine and were barred by , which restricts judicial interference once the election process—having been notified on —has officially commenced.
Court’s Reasoning: Why the Ballot Box Stays The Court observed that the 1994 Rules were designed with a pragmatic understanding of the demographic and logistical challenges within the state. While acknowledging that the has previously favored modern technology for its transparency, the clarified that the law in Punjab had not been amended to exclude paper ballots.
"In our society, where illiteracy, poverty and ignorance continue to plague a large section of society, the Rule making authority intentionally retained the provision of ballot papers and ballot boxes and did not omit the same, while introducing the concept of EVMs in municipal elections,"
the court stated. The judges reasoned that these provisions exist to ensure that the electoral process remains functional and resilient, even in scenarios where technical or logistical hurdles prevent the deployment of EVMs.
Key Observations
*
On Legislative Intent:
"There may be occasions where the
or the
may have to revert back to the traditional mode of ballot papers and ballot boxes. As such, the provision for the same in the Rules were and are understandably retained."
*
On
:
"It is now too late in the day for us to pass any order or issue any
, since the election programme was published as early as on
."
*
On Addressing Technology:
"While maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial in evaluating systems or institutions, blindly distrusting any aspect of the system can breed unwarranted skepticism and impede progress."
Final Verdict and Implications By the time the court convened to hear the matter, the withdrawal of candidature had concluded, and polling was imminent. Invoking the constitutional bar on interfering with the election timeline, the bench disposed of the petitions.
Crucially, the Court granted the petitioners the liberty to challenge the eventual election results via a formal if they discover specific instances of irregularity or malpractice. This decision serves as a reminder to stakeholders that while constitutional courts are the guardians of the democratic process, they will generally refuse to disrupt ongoing electoral schedules in the absence of extraordinary and compelling circumstances.
