Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs Nirmal Singh And Others on 23 July, 2026
1 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 23, 2026
GURPREET SINGH ........Appellant
Versus
NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Ms. Divyansh Vats, Advocate for
Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for respondent No.1
Ms. Aksroop Kaur, Advocate for
Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. Ravinder Singh Arora,
former SDM-cum-Election Tribunal, Ajnala in person.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to an
order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-
Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Ajnala, District Amritsar, whereby an
election petition preferred at the instance of the appellant against
rejection of his nomination for the post of Sarpanch was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the election for the post
of Sarpanch of village Dalam, Block Harsha Chhina, Post Office Bhalla
Pind, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. The schedule relating to the election
was as under:-
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
2 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
1. Filing of nomination – from 27.09.2024 up to 04.10.2024.
2. Scrutiny – 05.10.2024.
3. Withdrawal – 07.10.2024.
4. Date of polling and declaration of result – 15.10.2024.
As per the records, the nomination of the petitioner, who was
eligible to contest for the post of Sarpanch, was rejected by the Returning
Officer on 05.10.2024.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an election petition in
terms of Section 76 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), read with Rule 50 of the Punjab
Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1994
Rules”), before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer,
Ajnala. The issues in the election petition were framed. Thereafter, the
appellant led evidence, having appeared as PW-1, besides producing
certain documents in support of his case. The Election Tribunal, vide
order dated 09.01.2026, dismissed the election petition. Hence, the
present appeal.
CONTENTION(S):
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-PETITIONER(S):
4. The grouse raised on behalf of the appellant is that the order
passed by the learned Election Tribunal is wholly non-speaking and
unreasoned. It is pointed out that neither the rejection order passed by
the Returning Officer, nor even the order passed by the learned Election
Tribunal, refers to the details as to in what manner the nomination form of
the appellant was incomplete. It is thus submitted that the order dated
09.01.2026 passed by the learned Election Tribunal be set aside and a
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
3 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
fresh election be ordered for the post of Sarpanch of village Dalam, Block
Harsha Chhina, Post Office Bhalla Pind, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
a well-reasoned order has been passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
Election Tribunal and thus, the same calls for no interference. It is
pointed out that specific reason of “incomplete form/papers” for rejection
of the nomination submitted by the appellant was given both by the
Returning Officer and by the learned Election Tribunal and therefore, the
election petition filed by the appellant was rightly dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING:
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book. I find substance in the submission made on
behalf of the appellant.
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME UNDERLYING PANCHAYAT ELECTIONS:
7. It would be apposite to notice the constitutional scheme
underlying elections to Panchayati Raj institutions. Part IX of the
Constitution of India, inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-Third
Amendment) Act, 1992, envisages Panchayats as institutions of self-
government at the grassroots level. Article 243 of the Constitution of India
defines a “Panchayat” as an institution of self-government constituted for
the rural areas and Article 243-O bars interference by Courts in electoral
matters relating to Panchayats, save by way of an election petition
presented to such authority as the State Legislature may, by law, provide.
The underlying idea behind Article 243 is to constitutionalise the principle
of decentralisation, recognising that democracy is most meaningful when
governance begins at the level closest to the people. By conferring on
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
4 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
Panchayats the character of institutions of self-government, rather than
mere administrative sub-units of the State, Article 243 seeks to ensure
that the rural populace participates directly in decisions affecting its own
welfare and that authority devolves downward rather than being
concentrated at higher tiers of government. This constitutional vision
necessarily presupposes that elections to such bodies are conducted and
disputes arising therefrom are resolved with the promptness and fairness
befitting institutions entrusted with genuine self-governance.
7.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and
others v. Union of India and another, (2010) 7 SCC 202, while
upholding the constitutional validity of the Seventy-Third and Seventy-
Fourth Amendments, traced these amendments to the objectives of
democratic decentralisation, greater accountability between citizens and
the State apparatus as well as the empowerment of weaker sections
through a hierarchical structure of elected local bodies. The relevant
portion thereof is extracted hereunder:-
“2. The Constitution (Seventy-third) Amendment Act, 1992 [hereinafter
’73rd Amendment’] and the Constitution (Seventy-fourth) Amendment
Act, 1992 [hereinafter ’74th Amendment’] had inserted Part IX and Part
IX-A into the constitutional text thereby contemplating the powers,
composition and functions of local self-Government institutions, i.e. the
Panchayats (for rural areas) and Municipalities (for urban areas). In
pursuance of objectives such as democratic decentralization, greater
accountability between citizens and the state apparatus as well as the
empowerment of weaker sections, these constitutional amendments
contemplated a hierarchical structure of elected local bodies. With
respect to rural areas, Part IX contemplates three tiers of Panchayats,
namely those of ‘Gram Panchayats’ (for each village, or group of small
villages), ‘Panchayat Samitis’ (at the block level) and the ‘Zilla
Parishads’ (at the District level). For urban areas, Part IX-A prescribed
the constitution of ‘Nagar Panchayats’ (for areas in transition from aTEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
5 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)rural area to an urban area), ‘Municipal Councils’ (for smaller urban
areas) and ‘Municipal Corporations’ (for a larger urban area).
3. To better appreciate the legislative intent, it would be instructive to
refer to the following extract from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons for the 73rd Amendment :
“1. Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been in existence for a
long time, it has been observed that these institutions have not been
able to acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people’s
bodies due to a number of reasons including absence of regular
elections, prolonged supersessions, insufficient representation of
weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women,
inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources.
2. Article 40 of the Constitution which enshrines one of the Directive
Principles of State Policy lays down that the State shall take steps to
organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and
authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of
self-Government. In the light of the experience in the last forty years
and in view of the short- comings which have been observed, it is
considered that there is an imperative need to enshrine in the
Constitution certain basic and essential features of Panchayati Raj
Institutions to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them.
3. Accordingly, it is proposed to add a new Part relating to Panchayats
in the Constitution to provide for, among other things, Gram Sabha in a
village or group of villages; constitution of Panchayats at village and
other level or levels; direct elections to all seats in Panchayats at the
village and intermediate level, if any, and to the Offices of Chairpersons
of Panchayats at such levels; reservation of seats for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population for
membership of Panchayats and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats at
each level; reservation of not less than one-third of the seats for
women; fixing tenure of 5 years for Panchayats and holding elections
within a period of 6 months in the event of supersession of any
Panchayat; …””
It is this very constitutional scheme that finds statutory
expression in Punjab State Election Commission Act 1994 and the
Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, under which the present
election petition came to be filed and decided. The object of these
provisions is to ensure that disputes touching the electoral process at the
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
6 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
grassroots level are adjudicated swiftly, fairly and on a reasoned basis,
having regard to the vital role that these institutions play.
8. It bears emphasis that Panchayats are not merely ceremonial
or symbolic bodies; they are constituted to attend to the day-to-day
governance, administrative and developmental needs of the village
community including matters of sanitation, local infrastructure, welfare
schemes and civic administration that cannot brook indefinite delay. Any
vacuum or uncertainty in the constitution of such a body on account of a
wrongly rejected nomination, directly and adversely impacts the day-to-
day functioning of local self-governance in the village concerned. It is
against this constitutional and functional backdrop that the facts of the
present case are to be examined.
9. In the present case, the Returning Officer rejected the
nomination submitted by the appellant for the post of Sarpanch of village
Dalam, Block Harsha Chhina, Post Office Bhalla Pind, Tehsil Ajnala,
District Amritsar, on 05.10.2024. As per the record made available by the
learned State counsel, the only reason mentioned by the Returning
Officer is “incomplete form/papers”. Strangely, it is nowhere mentioned
as to which essential document, statutorily or legally required to be
appended along with the nomination form, was missing. Similarly, even
the learned Election Tribunal failed to mention for want of which essential
document, legally required to be appended along with the nomination
form, the same was found incomplete. The learned Election Tribunal has
further failed to refer to any relevant rule, regulation, guideline or
notification issued either by the Punjab State Election Commission or by
the Punjab Panchayati Raj Department, prescribing the list of essential
documents required to be attached for a nomination form to be treated as
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
7 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
complete. It would, therefore, be necessary to notice the statutory
scheme governing a valid nomination, so as to appreciate the precise
framework within which the rejection ought to have been reasoned and
against which its complete absence of reasoning stands out.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID NOMINATION:
10. In this context, it would be necessary to notice the statutory
requirements governing a valid nomination under the Act. Section 38(1)
of the Act provides as under:-
“38. (1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of section 35,
each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the
hours of eleven O’clock in the forenoon and three O’clock in the
afternoon deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this
behalf in the notice issued under Section 36, a nomination paper
completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by
an elector of the constituency as proposer:
Provided that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the
Returning Officer on a day which is a public holiday.”
10.1. The prescribed form referred to therein is Form No. IV under
Rule 9 of the 1994 Rules, which, along with the accompanying
declaration for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or
Backward Classes (in Form IV-A-1) and the prescribed fee under sub-
rules (2) to (5) thereof, constitutes the complete statutory checklist for a
valid nomination. Nothing beyond the nomination paper in Form-IV, the
caste declaration (where applicable) and the fee prescribed under Rule 9
is requirement for a complete nomination. It is, therefore, difficult to
appreciate what further “papers” or “documents” could have been found
wanting so as to justify rejection of the appellant’s nomination on the
ground of “incomplete form/papers”, particularly when neither the
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
8 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
Returning Officer nor the learned Election Tribunal has specified any
document beyond this statutory checklist that was allegedly missing.
10.2. Further, Section 41(5) of the Act casts a duty upon the
Returning Officer to record a brief statement of reasons for rejecting a
nomination paper and provides as under:-
“(5) The Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his
decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if the nomination paper is
rejected, shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such
rejection.”
10.3. This statutory requirement is reinforced by Rule 11 of the
1994 Rules, which governs the scrutiny of nomination papers and
provides as under:-
“11. Scrutiny of nomination papers and decision of objections (Section
41).– (1) The Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers at
the time appointed in this behalf, hear objections, if any, presented by
the objectors in person as to the eligibility of any candidate and
determine these objections after such enquiry as he may consider
necessary. The decision rejecting or accepting a nomination paper and
brief statement of reasons thereof shall be endorsed on the nomination
paper and signed by the Returning Officer.
Provided that the Returning Officer may–
(a) permit any clerical error in the nomination paper in regard to
names or numbers to be corrected in order to bring them in
conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral rolls;
and
(b) where necessary, direct that any clerical or printing error in
the said entries shall be overlooked.
(2) The person objecting under sub-rule (1) must be a candidate of the
concerned Panchayat or Sabha Area, as the case may be.”
10.4. Pertinently, Rule 11 of the 1994 Rules itself does not
contemplate an outright rejection of a nomination paper for every defect.
The proviso specifically empowers the Returning Officer to permit
correction of clerical errors relating to names or numbers and to overlook
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
9 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
clerical or printing errors in the entries, to bring the nomination paper in
conformity with the electoral rolls. This underscores that the scrutiny
process under the Act is meant to be curative and enabling wherever
possible, rather than one of automatic disqualification for any perceived
defect.
10.5. Significantly, neither the endorsement contemplated under
Section 41(5), nor the reasoned decision required to be recorded under
Rule 11, appears to have been produced before this Court, nor does
either appear to have been called for or examined by the learned
Election Tribunal before trying the election petition. This omission is
central to the grievance of the appellant and reaffirms that the rejection of
the nomination remains unexplained on record. The casual manner in
which the nomination was rejected and in which the election petition
thereafter came to be decided, reflects a failure to recognise that these
are not empty formalities but safeguards going to the very validity of the
election.
11. It further transpires that the learned Election Tribunal
proceeded to decide the election petition without calling for the original
record of the nomination proceedings. No direction appears to have been
issued to the Returning Officer to produce certified copies of the record,
or to specify the provision under which the nomination was treated as
incomplete. In the absence of the record having been summoned and
examined, the learned Election Tribunal could not have arrived at a
considered finding on the correctness or otherwise of the rejection,
rendering the exercise undertaken by it an empty formality rather than a
genuine adjudication as contemplated under Section 81 of the Act. In
such circumstances, the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Election
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
10 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
Tribunal stands in violation of both the fundamental principles of natural
justice and the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 81 of the
Act, which reads as under:-
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of the rules made
thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the Election Tribunal,
as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure contained in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) applicable to the
trial of suits:
Provided that the Election Tribunal shall have the
discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
to examine any witness or witnesses, if it is of the opinion
that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not
material for the decision of the election petition or that the
party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on
frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings
of the election petition. (2) The provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act 1 of 1872) shall, subject
to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all
respects to the trial of an election petition.”
This provision enjoins the learned Tribunal to grant the parties
adequate opportunity to lead evidence and to render a well-reasoned,
speaking order based on a discussion of that evidence, an exercise
conspicuously absent in the present case.
12. It is also relevant to note that Section 89(1)(c) of the Act
specifically empowers the learned Election Tribunal to declare an election
void where it is satisfied that any nomination has been improperly
rejected, which reads as under:-
“89. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the Election
Tribunal is of the opinion, —
(a) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not
qualified, or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the
Constitution of India or under this Act; or
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
11 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned
candidate or his election agent or by other person with the consent of a
returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or Grounds for
declaring election to be void. Other orders to be made by the Election
Tribunal.
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned
candidate, has been materially affected, –
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the
returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent; or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or
the reception of any vote which is void; or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution
of India or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this
Act;
the Election Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate
to be void.”
The safeguards under Rule 11 and Section 41(5) were
evidently built into the statutory scheme because the Legislature was
conscious of the fact that an improper rejection of a nomination would
result in vitiating the election itself. It is precisely to guard against so
drastic a consequence that the Returning Officer is required to permit
correction of curable defects rather than reject a nomination outright and
to record his reasons wherever he does reject one. The casual manner in
which the nomination of the appellant was rejected in the present case,
without any of these safeguards been observed, is thus a matter that
goes well beyond a mere procedural lapse.
13. It is also not lost sight of that, as a consequence of the
manner in which the election petition has been dealt with, almost 1 year 7
months have already passed without the electoral dispute reaching
finality, even though elections to such bodies are meant to ensure timely
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
12 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
and uninterrupted local self-governance. It may be recalled that one of
the principal objectives behind the Constitution (Seventy-Third
Amendment) Act, 1992 itself, as noticed above, was to remedy the
absence of regular and timely elections to Panchayats, which, prior to the
amendment, were often left to the discretion of the State Governments,
resulting in prolonged gaps and a weakening of grassroots democracy.
Such delay in the adjudication of the present election dispute, therefore,
defeats the very purpose for which the constitutional and statutory
scheme under Part IX was framed.
14. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 09.01.2026 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal,
Ajnala, District Amritsar is set aside.
15. At this stage, it may be noticed that since the statutory
election petition preferred at the instance of the appellant, whose
nomination for the post of Sarpanch was rejected by the Returning
Officer, was decided in gross violation of procedure, a cost of Rs.
25,000/- in each case is imposed upon Mr. Ravinder Singh Arora, the
then SDM-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Ajnala. However, it is
made clear that the cost be paid to the appellant(s) by the Officer
concerned from his own pocket and the same shall not be treated as
burden on the State Exchequer.
16. Separately, the Returning Officer, who is present in Court,
along with the learned State counsel, in compliance with order dated
22.07.2026, prays that the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- in each case imposed
upon him be reduced. At his fervent request, the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- in
each case is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- in each case. Learned counsel for
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
13 FAO-1653-2026 (O&M)
the appellant submits that the cost of Rs. 50,000/- in each case has been
received by him against receipt.
17. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the
learned Election Tribunal on 28.07.2026. Considering that a period of
almost 1 year and 7 months has already elapsed out of the total tenure of
5 years, the learned Election Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the election
petition within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order
upon summoning and examining the complete original records from the
State Election Commission, Punjab.
18. In terms of Section 102(2) of the Act, the Registry is directed
to send a copy of this order to the State Election Commission, Punjab,
along with intimation of the substance of this decision.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
23.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.07.27 16:58
I agree to specified portions
of this document
