Delimitation procedure ignored in Punjab, tailor-made wards created ‘suitable to a few to ensure success in polls’: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 18

In a major embarrassment for the State of Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today ruled that the delimitation procedure prescribed under the rules was given the brush-off by creating tailor-made wards “only suitable to a few to ensure their success in elections”.

The departure from the procedure resulted in disturbing level playing field to give undue advantage to a select few, the Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh and Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled, while setting aside the delimitation process under challenge.

The Bench also ruled that the entire exercise was a nullity and suffered from incurable defect as there was neither any alteration in the municipal limits, nor an increase in the population. Door-to-door population survey, crucial for collecting identifiable data for wards’ reservation, was also not done. The decision-making process was most cryptic, laconic and conducted in a manner totally alien to the procedure prescribed.

The Bench was hearing four petitions for setting aside process of Dera Baba Nanak municipal council wardbandi, for setting aside letter regarding delimitation of Phagwara municipal corporation wards, for quashing notification constituting board for Dharamkot municipal council delimitation and quashing “illegal appointment” of two Jalandhar Municipal Corporation delimitation board members.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Brar asserted it was not for the Court to indicate the manner for carrying out delimitation. But it could interfere if infirmities/illegalities by the respondent-State were grave and palpably illegal, especially when the election process was yet to be put in motion by the State Election Commission by issuing schedule.

Justice Brar observed the petitioners approached the quarters concerned by filing representations well in time and filed petition much before the issuance of notifications on finalizing delimitation. As such, the respondents could not take the “shelter of technicalities” and plead bar to interference by the courts in electoral matters under Article 243ZG of the Constitution by issuing notifications during the pendency of writ petitions. The issues raised by the petitioners could not be frustrated by efflux of time.

The officials responsible for complete derogation of principles provided under Delimitation Rules of 1972 could not be allowed to take cover of the bar. Allowing them to do so would mean permitting them to

“eat their cake and have it too”.

“Elections are not merely rituals to be performed periodically. The elections are the only effective tool to ascertain the will of the people for genuine self-governance at grass root level which is possible only through free and fair elections. ‘Freeness’ and ‘fairness’ is a universally recognized standard by which a level playing field is ensured. It not only ensures that each competitor has an equal chance to succeed, but also that they all play by the same set of rule,” Justice Brar observed.

Go-ahead to poll panel for holding elections

HC has granted State Election Commission liberty to hold election to the municipal constituencies existing before impugned delimitation exercise in the first fortnight of the November as intended by the State government.