Punjab & Haryana HC slams election tribunal for ‘callous’ handling of sarpanch election dispute
The court described the tribunal’s order as “bereft of application of mind,” emphasising that it failed to follow the proper legal procedures in adjudicating the election petition.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has criticised an election tribunal for its “callous” handling of a sarpanch election dispute in Rupnagar. The court described the tribunal’s order as “bereft of application of mind,” emphasising that it failed to follow the proper legal procedures in adjudicating the election petition.
“From the perusal of the order, it is clear that leave aside framing of issues, the tribunal did not even bother to call for response from the respondent. It proceeded to decide the election petition as if he was resolving a trivial dispute without realising that he was dealing with democratic rights of the parties. The order is bereft of application of mind,” the bench of justice Pankaj Jain observed while directing that the order be placed before the state’s chief secretary to apprise him of “casual approach” election tribunal dealt with the matter and requested him to issue instructions to tribunals to follow procedure as contemplated under law, while dealing with election disputes.
The petition was from one Sarabjeet Kaur who contested for the post of sarpanch of gram panchayat village Khattana, under Nurpur Bedi tehsil in Rupnagar held on October 15, 2024. She secured 99 votes against the winner Kamaljeet Kaur, who got 104 votes out of total 205 votes polled in the election. Sarabjeet Kaur filed a petition challenging the election which was dismissed on November 12, 2024 by the election tribunal, Anandpur Sahib.
In HC, she had argued that not only the procedure not followed by the tribunal but the order has been passed in most “callous manner”, which does not behove of legal authority, that too, deciding election petition.
{{/usCountry}}In HC, she had argued that not only the procedure not followed by the tribunal but the order has been passed in most “callous manner”, which does not behove of legal authority, that too, deciding election petition.
{{/usCountry}}The court found that the election petition was dismissed on November 12, 2024, the day fixed for appearance of the respondent merely on the claim of presiding officer that he counted the votes “honestly and impartially”. Even the PRO’s statement was not recorded.
{{/usCountry}}The court found that the election petition was dismissed on November 12, 2024, the day fixed for appearance of the respondent merely on the claim of presiding officer that he counted the votes “honestly and impartially”. Even the PRO’s statement was not recorded.
{{/usCountry}}“Neither the response has been called for nor issues have been framed. No evidence was recorded. The election petition has been adjudicated by passing a callous order,” the court observed, underlining that election disputes can’t be brushed aside in a summary manner.
{{/usCountry}}“Neither the response has been called for nor issues have been framed. No evidence was recorded. The election petition has been adjudicated by passing a callous order,” the court observed, underlining that election disputes can’t be brushed aside in a summary manner.
{{/usCountry}}The court underlined that the tribunal is obligated to follow the procedure laid down in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which requires a structured adjudication of election petitions—summoning of parties and responses, framing of issues, examination and recording of evidence, and reasoned findings, which the court said was not followed in the case in hand. The court has now quashed the tribunal order and directed the parties to appear before the tribunal again on August 26, which would examine the dispute afresh.
