HC questions Punjab State Election Commission on lack of corrective directions amid audio clip allegations

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday questioned the State Election Commission why no immediate corrective direction was issued to polling authorities despite allegations that an audio clip suggested instructions capable of influencing the electoral process. The Bench made it clear that the Commission must itself rise to the occasion when the allegations surface and not wait for others to trigger action.

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, broadly indicated that the petitions would be disposed of with an expectation that the Commission will issue appropriate directions. The Court pointedly asked why, assuming the contents of the clip were true, the SEC had not already instructed all district-level machinery that such “instructions need not be followed”.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that multiple notices under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were issued by the investigating officer to six persons for furnishing the original recording. Despite repeated summons for producing the original storage device, the same was not supplied. Only a pen-drive, supported by a Section 63 certificate under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, was submitted.

Related: Days before zila parishad polls, Patiala SSP proceeds on leave

The Court questioned the Commission after it was informed that the sample had been forwarded to the Punjab Forensic Laboratory rather than independent forensic body at Chandigarh. Observing that allegations directly affect the credibility, the Bench asserted that, in a democratic framework, neutrality was demonstrated by proactively sending contested material “to a neutral body yourself, instead of waiting for someone to complain”.

The Commission stated that it had not sent the material; it had merely forwarded the complaint to the investigating agency, which in turn forwarded the device for examination. It added that observers — IAS and IPS officers of appropriate seniority — had already been deployed in all districts to insulate the election process.

The Bench was also informed that the SSP concerned had proceeded on leave covering the polling period and additional charge had been handed over to another officer. The Court made it clear that the matter would be disposed of with the expectation that the SEC’s directions reflect clarity, neutrality, and immediate applicability across all returning and supervisory officers.