State Election Commission Cannot Cancel Village Polls Mid-Process Over Nomination Rejection; Jurisdiction Lies with Election Tribunal Post-Election: High Court - 2024-11-07

Legal Awareness & Information.

High Court Quashes Election Cancellation, Declares Sarpanch Unofficially Elected

Chandigarh: In a significant ruling clarifying the boundaries of authority during the election process, the High Court, presided over by Justice SureshwarThakur , has set aside an order from the State Election Commission that cancelled the entire election for the posts of Panch and Sarpanch in village Chak Haraj, Tehsil Mamdot, District Ferozepur.

The court held that the Election Commission lacked the jurisdiction to cancel the elections midway based on the ground of improper rejection of nomination papers. It reiterated that such disputes fall within the exclusive purview of the Election Tribunal, to be addressed through an election petition after the completion of the election process.

Background of the Dispute

The case arose from the Gram Panchayat elections in Chak Haraj. The petitioner had filed her nomination for the post of Sarpanch. Following the scrutiny of nomination papers on October 4, 2024, the Returning Officer rejected the nominations of several candidates for both Sarpanch and Panch positions. With the rejection of nominations for respondents 6 to 8, the petitioner was left as the sole candidate in the fray for the Sarpanch post, seemingly poised to be declared elected unopposed.

However, the rejected candidates (respondents 4 to 10) approached the State Election Commission (respondent 2) on October 7, 2024, alleging their nominations were improperly rejected on malicious grounds. Acting on this complaint, the State Election Commission issued an order on October 11, 2024, cancelling the elections for both Panch and Sarpanch posts, which were scheduled for October 15, 2024.

The petitioner challenged this cancellation order before the High Court, arguing it was illegal, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice. She sought a writ of Certiorari to quash the cancellation and a writ of Mandamus directing authorities to declare her elected unopposed as Sarpanch and hold elections only for the Panch posts.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Thakur meticulously examined the scheme of election law, particularly Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. The court noted that Section 89 explicitly lists "improper rejection of any nomination" [Section 89(1)(c)] as a ground for declaring an election void. Crucially, this power is vested solely in the Election Tribunal , and it is exercised after the election results are declared, upon the filing of an election petition by an aggrieved party.

The judgment highlighted that the State Election Commission, in cancelling the elections based on the ground of improper nomination rejection, effectively usurped the jurisdiction that legally belongs to the Election Tribunal.

The court reinforced this principle by citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami Versus The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952 SC) . This precedent establishes the critical principle that once the election process commences, interference should be avoided, and all election-related disputes, particularly those that could vitiate the election outcome (like improper nomination rejection), should be postponed until after the election and raised before the specially constituted Election Tribunal through an election petition.

The court observed: "Though the ground relating to the improper rejection of the nomination papers... was required to be taken as a ground in the election petition to be filed before the Election Tribunal concerned... However, the State Election Commission, through the making of impugned order, has proceeded to after accepting the (supra) ground... thus has proceeded to cancel the elections concerned." (Para 8)

And further, citing N.P. Ponnuswami: "...once the election process commences, therebys vis-a-vis the ongoing elections rather no interference is required to be made. Contrarily, the remedy to the aggrieved is to institute an election petition in terms of the relevant statutory provisions, thus before the Election Tribunal concerned." (Para 11)

The High Court found that the State Election Commission acted with a "complete non-application of mind appertaining to the jurisdiction" and "ill assumed the jurisdiction" belonging to the Election Tribunal. The cancellation of Panch elections was also deemed vitiated for the same reasons.

Final Decision and Directions

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed and set aside the State Election Commission's order dated October 11, 2024.

The court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to: 1. Immediately declare the petitioner elected unopposed as Sarpanch of village Chak Haraj, given she was the only candidate left for that post. 2. Immediately announce the schedule for conducting elections for the post of Panches for the village, including only those candidates whose nomination papers were originally accepted by the Returning Officer.

The judgment clarified that any aggrieved party retains the right to challenge the election results, including the declaration of the Sarpanch and the outcome of the Panch elections, by filing an election petition before the Election Tribunal concerned, which is mandated to decide such petitions lawfully and expeditiously.

The ruling serves as a clear reminder that the power to adjudicate the validity of nominations and set aside elections based on grounds like improper rejection rests specifically with the Election Tribunal post-election, reinforcing the established scheme of election law aimed at ensuring the timely completion of the democratic process.