The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a directive issued by the Punjab State Election Commission (SEC) canceling the panchayat election for Chak Haraj village in Ferozepur district. The court found that the SEC had exceeded its jurisdiction by intervening in an election matter that rightfully belonged to the Election Tribunal under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994.

A bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that the SEC’s cancellation of the election was based on the alleged improper rejection of some candidates’ nominations. These candidates had approached the SEC after their nominations were rejected by the returning officer, alleging that the rejections were “prejudicial”. Based on this allegation, the SEC postponed the election, originally scheduled for October 15, leaving petitioner Simarpreet Kaur – the only remaining candidate – unable to proceed unopposed to the Sarpanch post.

“The impugned order dated October 11 is hereby set aside and set aside, but with a mandate on the concerned respondents to immediately declare that the petitioner shall be elected without objection as the sarpanch of Chak Haraj village, Mamdot tehsil, Ferozepur district, in view of the fact that the petitioner is the only candidate left in the fray for the post of sarpanch,” the bench argued.

Referring to Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, the court held that only the Election Tribunal had the power to annul an election based on wrongful rejection of nominations. The provision provided that complaints regarding such procedural irregularities must be pursued through an election petition filed with the Board of Elections, not through direct action by the SEC. As such, the court held that the SEC lacked authority to cancel the election

In its detailed order, the bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of “NP Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others, which mandates non-interference in the election process till its completion.

The bench held that the Supreme Court had long held that election-related disputes should be postponed till the conclusion of the elections to ensure that the election proceedings were not delayed or disturbed by interim interventions.

The Court further emphasized that the SEC’s order impinges on powers vested exclusively in the Election Tribunal and to some extent the State Government under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. By bypassing these authorities and unilaterally canceling the election, the SEC not only violated jurisdictional limits but also deprived petitioner of her right to proceed as an unopposed candidate.