'Where are corrective directions': HC raps poll panel amid audio clip row

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, made it clear that the commission must itself rise to the occasion when the allegations surface and not wait for others to trigger action. It broadly indicated that the petitions would be disposed of with an expectation that the commission 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”.

SEC taken to task

Let us assume that what is said in the tapes is correct, the state election commissioner need to issue instructions that, if at all this is true, you need not follow these instructions.…Where is that instruction? -- HC Bench

The Bench asserted in the open court: “Let us assume that what is said in the tapes is correct, the state election commissioner need to issue instructions that, if at all this is true, you need not follow these instructions.…Where is that instruction? He has to just issue a direction that it has to be done in all fairness…”

The Bench was hearing petitions filed by former MLA Daljit Singh Cheema, Leader of Opposition Partap Singh Bajwa and other PIL petitioners. Among other things, it was alleged that the clip revealed “directives to halt opponents at homes or routes, act on local MLA's orders, shield ruling AAP supporters with positive reports, and ensure returning officers reject entries, engineering uncontested wins and violating the model code of conduct".

The Bench, among others, was assisted by senior advocates Ashok Aggarwal, APS Deol and Chetan Mittal. The state was represented by Advocate-General Maninder Singh Bedi and his team. The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that multiple notices were issued by the investigating officer to six persons for furnishing the original recording. Despite repeated notices 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.

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. “In a democratic setup, if there are allegations against you, you should rise to the occasion. And send it to a neutral body yourself. Why to wait for somebody else to complain?

The commission said it had not sent the material; it had merely forwarded the complaint to the investigating agency, which in turn forwarded the material 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.