The Supreme Court has set aside the elections held in 50 municipal wards across Patiala and Moga districts of Punjab, after a fact-finding commission appointed by the Court found widespread obstruction of the nomination process, including candidates being prevented from filing nominations, assaulted, threatened and having nomination papers snatched or destroyed.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana accepted the findings of a one-member fact-finding commission headed by former Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge Justice Nirmaljit Kaur and directed that fresh elections be conducted in the affected wards.
The proceedings arose from challenges to the municipal elections in Punjab, where petitioners alleged, among other things, that members of the ruling party, police officials and third parties had prevented candidates from submitting nomination forms through physical assault, tearing of clothes and snatching of nomination papers. They also alleged that the nomination process had not been audio-visually recorded despite directions of the High Court.
The Supreme Court had earlier appointed Justice Nirmaljit Kaur to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into the disputed claims. The Commission examined affidavits, official replies, video and CCTV footage, photographs, voter registers and voter lists, besides recording statements of election officials, police officers, civil officials, the Election Observer and claimants.
The Commission found that the nomination process had witnessed widespread obstruction. In Patiala, elections in 13 wards were found vitiated because opposition candidates were prevented from filing nominations, while elections in another 14 wards were found vitiated after particular opposition candidates were forcibly excluded from contesting. The Commission also found evidence of bogus or multiple voting and intimidation in two other Patiala wards.
In Dharamkot, elections in seven wards were found vitiated due to forcible prevention of nominations, coercive withdrawal or wrongful rejection. In Baghapurana, the Commission found that elections to all 15 wards were vitiated as opposition candidates were systematically prevented from filing nominations.
The Court recorded that, in aggregate, the Commission found 50 ward elections to be vitiated and deserving of being set aside, 28 in District Patiala and 22 in District Moga.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of Punjab, stated that the State had no objection to accepting the Commission’s recommendations. The Court accordingly directed fresh elections.
To ensure that the fresh elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, the Court requested the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to constitute, within one week, a Monitoring Committee headed by a retired High Court judge. The re-election schedule is to be notified only after the committee is constituted.
The High Court Chief Justice has also been requested to nominate at least two or three senior members of the Bar as observers. The filing and scrutiny of nominations, allocation of symbols and polling are to be videographed in the presence of the observers, with the recordings preserved and handed over to the Monitoring Committee.
The State has been directed to provide the Monitoring Committee with ward-wise details of officials deployed for election duty, including police officers of the rank of DSP and above. Any complaint regarding interference or obstruction during the re-election process may be placed before the Monitoring Committee, which can refer substantiated complaints to the Chief Justice for appropriate judicial action.
The Court directed that the entire re-election process be completed within six weeks. The results will be declared only after the Chief Justice of the High Court is satisfied, on the basis of the Monitoring Committee’s report, that the elections were conducted in a free and fair manner.
The Court clarified that its directions were issued in the peculiar facts of these cases and would not constitute a precedent for future by-elections. It also placed on record its appreciation for Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s “remarkable diligence and objectivity” in conducting the fact-finding enquiry.
