Punjab Municipal Elections : Supreme Court Appoints Former P&H HC Judge To Enquire Into Candidates' Allegations Of Nomination Paper-Snatching, Etc.

The Supreme Court recently constituted a Fact Finding Commission and appointed a former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge to enquire into issues raised by candidates of Punjab municipal elections regarding conduct of the polls.

Without expressing any opinion on merits, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order appointing Justice Nirmaljit Kaur (former High Court judge) to perform the stipulated task, preferably on day-today basis, and submit a report.

"Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, both sides have fairly agreed to deviate from the settled prescribed procedure so that a Fact-Finding Commission can be constituted limited to the sub-judice constituencies. Liberty to submit claims shall be limited to those who have either approached the High Court or this Court by way of special leave petitions/intervenor applications", the order observed.

"It goes without saying that the appointment of the Fact Finding Commission will not be a precedent", it added.

Briefly put, the Court was dealing with a batch of petitions filed by members of different political parties raising disputes qua the conduct of elections to the posts of Councillors/Members of the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, and Nagar Panchayats in Punjab.

The petitioners alleged inter-alia that members of the ruling party (AAP), police officials, and others prevented them from submitting their nomination forms; that those persons engaged in physical assault, tearing of clothes, and snatching of nomination papers of the petitioners; that despite orders of the Court, the nomination process was not recorded by audio-visual means; and, that elections for certain posts (including Mayor and Senior Deputy Mayor) were being conducted by an incomplete quorum.

Further, the petitioners claimed that since they were prevented from filing their nominations, the respondents (who were elected unopposed in certain wards) ought to be restrained from being administered oath of office.

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court was of the view that the matter involved questions of fact that could not be determined by the High Court or the top Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Further, the issues were giving rise to uncertainty regarding smooth functioning of elected municipal bodies. As such, the Court impressed upon the parties that a Fact Finding Commission be constituted to conduct enquiry and passed an order to that effect when they consented.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Vivek Tankha, Narender Hooda, Jeevesh Nagrath, Shadan Farasat, Anu Chatrath and Sanjay Hegde; Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh

Case Title: SEEMA SHARMA v. STATE OF PUNJAB, SLP(C) No. 3894/2025 (and connected cases)

Click Here To Read/Download Order