Punjab & Haryana HC Declines to Halt Punjab Municipal Elections Conducted by Ballot Paper, Cites Petitioners' Delay
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu refused to interfere with Punjab's municipal election programme, finding the petitions filed too late after the election schedule was already well advanced.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in a Division Bench judgment pronounced on 22 May 2026, dismissed three petitions that challenged the State Election Commission of Punjab's decision to conduct municipal elections through ballot papers and ballot boxes rather than Electronic Voting Machines. Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, leading the bench along with Justice Sanjiv Berry, held that the petitioners had approached the court far too late in the election cycle for any effective judicial intervention to be possible. The bench left open the remedy of an election petition for any aggrieved party after the conclusion of the process.
The Challenge: Ballot Papers Instead of EVMs for Punjab Municipal Polls
The State Election Commission, Punjab (respondent No. 2) issued a notification on 13 May 2026 declaring the election programme for Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, and Nagar Panchayats across Punjab. The programme ran from the filing of nominations on 13 May 2026 through to the completion of the election process on 1 June 2026, with polling scheduled for 26 May 2026 and counting on 29 May 2026.
The Commission decided to conduct these elections using ballot papers and ballot boxes rather than EVMs. Three petitions were filed — CWP-PIL-136-2026 by Ruchita Garg, CWP-PIL-137-2026 by Preet Kamal Uppal, and CWP-15939-2026 by Deepak Verma and another — on 18 May 2026 and 19 May 2026, challenging this decision.
Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal appeared for the petitioner in CWP-PIL-136-2026. Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, assisted by Mr. Harneet S. Oberoi and others, appeared for the petitioner in CWP-PIL-137-2026. Mr. N.K. Verma appeared for the petitioners in CWP-15939-2026. The State of Punjab was represented by Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi. Mr. Aayush Sarna appeared for the State Election Commission and Mr. Prateek Gupta for the Election Commission of India.
The Petitioners' Case: Supreme Court's ADR Judgment and Section 48-A
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the decision to use ballot papers was in gross violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and another, (2025) SCC 732. In that case, the Supreme Court declined a prayer to revert to ballot papers and ballot boxes for polling, and issued directions to strengthen EVM integrity.
The petitioners also relied on Section 48-A of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994, which provides that every voting machine shall have a control unit and a balloting unit of such design as may be approved by the Punjab State Election Commission. On the basis of this provision, they contended that EVMs were the only permissible mode for voting and counting in municipal elections.
They further pointed to correspondence exchanged between the State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India, arguing that despite ample opportunity, the State Election Commission made no serious effort to requisition EVMs for the municipal elections in time.
The State Election Commission's response was that it had sought EVMs of the M2 model, whereas the Election Commission of India was making available only M3A model machines. The bench observed that this amounted to a blame game between the two respondents and declined to adjudicate that dispute.
Preliminary Objection: Article 243ZG and PIL Maintainability
The Advocate General of Punjab and counsel for the State Election Commission raised a preliminary objection on two grounds. First, that the petitions did not satisfy the basic requirements of a Public Interest Litigation. Second, that since the election programme had been published on 13 May 2026 and the petitions were filed only on 18 and 19 May 2026, the constitutional bar in Article 243ZG(b) came into play, disentitling the petitioners to any relief.
Article 243ZG(b) bars courts from interfering with the election process once it has commenced. The bench noted this objection but declined to rule on it, given the nature of the order it was passing on the merits.
The Court's Reasoning: Ballot Papers Retained Deliberately, But Delay Forecloses Relief
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, writing the judgment, examined the structure of the 1994 Rules. He observed that while Section 48-A was introduced in 2006 to provide for EVMs, the rule-making authority simultaneously retained the provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes. Rules 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 65, 67, 70, and 71 of the 1994 Rules continued to govern ballot paper voting even after EVMs were introduced.
The bench reasoned that this retention was deliberate. In a society where illiteracy, poverty, and ignorance continue to affect a large section of people, the rule-making authority kept the ballot paper provisions intact and did not omit them when introducing EVMs. The court accepted that there may be occasions when the Election Commission of India or a State Election Commission may have to revert to the traditional mode, and the rules were retained with that possibility in mind.
On the Supreme Court's ruling in Association for Democratic Reforms, the bench extracted at length from the judgments of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Justice Datta had observed that the exercise of tallying VVPAT paper trails had not resulted in any mismatch and that the petitioners' case rested entirely on apprehension and suspicion. Justice Khanna had stated that “regressive measures to revert to paper ballots” that do not adequately safeguard citizens' interests “have to be eschewed.” The Punjab & Haryana High Court summarised the effect of that ruling as the Apex Court having deprecated the traditional mode of ballot papers and ballot boxes for polling.
Despite accepting that the Supreme Court's reasoning weighed against a reversion to ballot papers, the bench held that it could not act on that persuasion in the present case. The election programme had been published on 13 May 2026. The petitions were filed five and six days later. Arguments concluded on 21 May 2026. By that point, the last date for withdrawal of candidature had already passed on 19 May 2026. Only polling on 26 May 2026 and counting on 29 May 2026 remained.
The bench held that it was “too late in the day” to pass any order or issue any writ. Interfering at that stage would have disrupted an election process that had already substantially run its course.
Outcome
The Division Bench disposed of all three petitions, CWP-PIL-136-2026, CWP-PIL-137-2026, and CWP-15939-2026, without granting any relief. The petitioners were given liberty to challenge the election process by way of an election petition, if so advised, after the conclusion of the municipal elections.