High Court slams election tribunal for ‘casual approach’ in Sarpanch election disputes

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the election tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib, for adopting a “casual approach” in adjudicating the democratic rights of citizens and for “devising its own procedure” in violation of established law. The bench observed that the tribunal not only erred in law but also in procedure.

“The tribunal unfortunately devised its own procedure ignoring the procedure established by law,” Justice Pankaj Jain asserted, while referring to serious lapses in the handling of election petitions. The judgment’s copy was also directed to be forwarded to Punjab Chief Secretary to apprise him of the tribunal’s approach.

The order came on two appeals as the bench set aside the impugned order dated March 6 passed by the election tribunal, which declared Pargat Singh Brar as Harike Kalan gram panchayat’s elected sarpanch. Justice Jain directed the parties to appear before the tribunal on October 27 after directing the tribunal to decide the election petition afresh after framing issues based upon the pleadings on record in accordance with law.

Justice Jain, during the course of hearing, was told that the panchayat election were held on October 15, 2024, in which five candidates contested. Gurpreet Singh was declared elected, securing 2,842 votes following which Brar challenged the election. Among other things, he contended that Gurpreet Singh was disqualified under the provisions of the Representation of People Act as he was a convict in a case registered under the NDPS Act, 1985. The conviction dated September 17, 2014, had not been stayed, although the sentence was suspended. The election tribunal, in its impugned order, accepted the plea and declared Brar elected, holding that Gurpreet Singh was “not eligible to contest election”.

After hearing rival contentions and taking into consideration the material placed before the court, Justice Jain found the tribunal’s approach legally untenable. “The tribunal erred in declaring respondent elected candidate without there being any allegation or satisfaction that but for the votes obtained by returned candidate by corrupt practices, the election petitioner would have obtained majority of the valid votes,” the bench observed.

Elaborating on the legal principle, the bench asserted: “The voters when respond to the corrupt practice of an elected candidate, they pollute their franchise and thus their votes being polluted, need not be included in the democratic process. On the other hand, where a disqualified person has been allowed to contest on account of act or omission of the Election Commission and there is no allegation that the voters connected with the corrupt practice exercised by the returned candidate, the votes polled by him cannot be kept out of the democratic process.”

Referring to one of the appeals filed by the elected candidate challenging the procedure followed by the tribunal, the bench observed: “A bare perusal of the order passed by the election tribunal would reveal that the same has been passed without following due procedure. No issues have been framed. No evidence was recorded. Even issue qua presentation of petition deserves to be decided afresh in accordance with ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court.”

Justice Jain made it clear that the tribunal must now follow proper legal procedure, framing issues based on pleadings and recording evidence before deciding the election petition afresh.