The allegations are part of SLP challenging the Punjab and Haryana HC's December 13 order that disposed of their earlier grievances.
New Delhi, December 20: The Supreme Court today refused to stay the Punjab Municipal Corporation elections 2024 scheduled for December 21, while issuing notice to the Punjab State Election Commission (SEC) over allegations raised by opposition candidates. The plea, filed by candidates from the BJP, Shiromani Akali Dal, and Indian National Congress, claims they were systematically prevented from filing nominations for the Patiala elections by the ruling Aam Aadmi Party.
The allegations are part of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's December 13 order that disposed of their earlier grievances.
Supreme Court's Observations
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PS Varale refused to interfere at this stage but assured a thorough examination of the matter after the elections.
Justice Nath remarked, "If we are satisfied that candidates were deliberately prevented from filing nominations, we will set aside everything. However, at this juncture, there is no justification for granting a stay."
Allegations of Election Interference
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, representing Congress candidates, alleged that 27 out of 60 Congress nominees were obstructed from filing their papers. He claimed their nomination papers were torn, and they were denied entry to the election office. Tankha added that the SEC had refused to intervene, citing the initiation of the election process.
Advocate Velan, representing a BJP candidate, argued that his client was illegally detained by the police on December 12 to prevent him from submitting his nomination.
The petitioners alleged widespread misuse of state machinery, including police involvement, to obstruct opposition candidates. They claim that of the 60 wards in the Patiala Municipal Corporation, only 31 candidates managed to file nominations, while others faced physical intimidation, police collusion, and harassment.
State’s Defense
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the Punjab government, opposed the plea, arguing that Article 243ZG of the Constitution prohibits judicial interference in election processes once they are underway.
Justice Nath, however, noted that the SEC should have addressed the complaints on their merits rather than dismissing them under procedural grounds. The Court directed the parties to file counter-affidavits and scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 19, 2025.
High Court Directions
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier directed the SEC to ensure free and fair elections by deploying adequate police personnel at polling booths. However, the petitioners argue that the High Court’s decision did not address the alleged misuse of state power during the nomination process.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s decision to review the matter post-elections could have significant implications if it finds merit in the allegations. For now, the elections will proceed as scheduled, with the SEC under scrutiny for its handling of opposition complaints.
