Court Declines Interference in Ongoing Elections, Cites Constitutional Bar and Delayed Petitions
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of the State Election Commission, Punjab, to conduct municipal elections using ballot papers and ballot boxes instead of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, delivered the judgment on May 22, 2026, in response to petitions filed by Ruchita Garg and others challenging the use of traditional voting methods.
The petitioners argued that the decision to use ballot papers was in contravention of the Supreme Court's earlier observations favoring EVMs for their integrity and reliability. The Supreme Court had previously emphasized the preference for EVMs while allowing for rigorous checks and balances to ensure their integrity. However, the High Court found that the statutory framework under the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994, allows for both methods of voting and upheld the State Election Commission's decision.
The Court acknowledged the petitioners' concerns but highlighted that the petitions were filed after the election program had already commenced. The election schedule was published on May 13, 2026, and the petitions were filed on May 18 and 19, 2026. Due to the advanced stage of the election process and the constitutional bar under Article 243ZG(b), the Court declined to interfere.
In its judgment, the High Court noted that while EVMs are generally preferred, the statutory provisions accommodate both EVMs and ballot papers. The Court emphasized that the law provides for the use of ballot papers in certain situations, and the Election Commission's decision in this regard was within its legal rights.
The Court also addressed the petitioners' concerns about the lack of effort to requisition EVMs, stating that any disputes or challenges to the election process should be pursued through an Election Petition after the elections. The judgment effectively provides petitioners the liberty to challenge the election results post-election if they so choose.
The decision has significant implications for the ongoing municipal elections in Punjab, where polling is scheduled for May 26, 2026. The High Court's ruling reinforces the legal framework supporting the use of traditional voting methods while maintaining the option for future challenges through appropriate legal channels.
Bottom Line:
Use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections upheld, but no interference allowed in ongoing municipal elections due to delayed filing of petitions. Petitioners granted liberty to challenge election process through an Election Petition.
Statutory provision(s): Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 Section 48-A, Constitution of India, Article 243ZG(b).
Ruchita Garg v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2904746
