Why Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejected Over 800 Writ Petitions Challenging Punjab Panchayat Elections?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed over 800 writ petitions challenging the process of Punjab Panchayat Elections on the ground of alleged arbitrary rejection of nomination papers filed by the candidates.The division bench referring to Supreme Court's decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) said that there is complete bar on invocation of...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed over 800 writ petitions challenging the process of Punjab Panchayat Elections on the ground of alleged arbitrary rejection of nomination papers filed by the candidates.
The division bench referring to Supreme Court's decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) said that there is complete bar on invocation of writ jurisdiction even if the nomination papers are improperly rejected, and the appropriate remedy is to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal.
Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma said, "election processes', thus require no interference therewiths being made rather at any stage by the Courts of law. Apparently, the said trite expostulations of law as carried thereins, when do cover the subject at hand, therefore, the asked for mandamus cannot be passed by this Court."
In its order uploaded today, the Court said that there is "no iota of jurisdiction" of the High Court to tinker with the already announced election programme.
The High Court was flooded with writ petitions alleging that nomination papers of the candidates were rejected arbitrarily and pleas were filed seeking stay on the election schedule.
Among other grounds, it was argued that the returning officer is supposed to record a detailed reasoning while rejecting nomination papers as per the Punjab Panchayat Act and Punjab Panchayat Election Rules but the same was not done in the present case.
The Court opined that even if the Returning officer has breached the statutory requirement by not recording reason in rejecting nomination papers, still the relief cannot be sought at this stage before the Court.
"The reason being that therebys this Court would be transgressing the clear expressions...rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherebys there is a complete bar against the High Court, to in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, thus make any tinkerings with the announced election programme, even on the touchstone of their being improper rejection of the nomination papers, besides the said nomination papers being rejected without adherence rather being made by the Returning Officer concerned, qua the necessity," it added.
It also rejected the submission that declaring an unopposed candidate as winner of the election before polling will be violation of right to vote for NOTA (None Of The Above).
Referring to Section 54(3) of the Panchayat Act, the Court said that a statutory injunction is made upon the Returning Officer to forthwith declare the unopposed candidate as elected.
"Consequently, when no elections became held to the seat concerned, nor also when there was any necessity for the electorate through theirs entering the polling booth concerned, to thus exercise NOTA. Resultantly, the non assigning of any right of NOTA to the electorate concerned, rather is completely irrelevant," it added.
The Court clarified that the question of exercising the right to vote for NOTA only arises when there are at least two candidates.
In light of the above, stating that there is no merit in the petitions, the pleas were dismissed.
Last week, a vacation bench had stayed the election proceeding while noting that candidates were declared winners "unopposed" even before commencement of elections, by arbitrarily rejecting nomination papers of other candidates. In some cases officials of the "governing party in the State" tore nomination papers and claimed that papers were lost. In some other cases, nomination papers were rejected without reasons or for false reasons, it had noted.
However, the stay was vacated by the High Court and the Supreme Court also did not allow to stay the elections, and it took place on October 15 as per the schedule.
CJI DY Chandrachud was of the view that staying elections after the polling has commenced will have grave consequences and may lead to chaos.
"Polling has opened, suppose we stay there will be chaos....the matter will be listed, but we are not staying the elections," the CJI said.
GURMAIL SINGH V/S STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND ORS [with connected matters]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 299