Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines to Interfere With Rejection of Panchayat Election Nominations; Holds Disputed Encroachment Issues Must Be Raised Through Election Petition
Case Name: Kamal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others; Harjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CWP-36818-2025 and CWP-36819-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Suri
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to entertain writ petitions challenging the rejection of nomination papers for Panchayat Samiti elections, holding that where rejection is based on findings of encroachment upon Gram Panchayat land, the dispute involves questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that rejection of nomination papers is a statutory ground for filing an election petition under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, and such remedy is the appropriate and efficacious course available to the aggrieved candidates.
Summary: The writ petitions were filed by candidates whose nomination papers for contesting Panchayat Samiti elections were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that they and their families were in unauthorised possession of Gram Panchayat land, including land recorded as rasta and other village land. The petitioners contended that the findings of encroachment were factually incorrect and that no land belonging to the Gram Panchayat had been encroached upon by them.
It was argued that the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to set aside the rejection orders, particularly since the elections were imminent and granting relief would not disrupt the electoral process. The petitioners also contended that no proper summary inquiry had been conducted before rejecting their nominations.
The State opposed the petitions, submitting that the Returning Officer had passed detailed speaking orders after inquiry, recording findings of encroachment. It was contended that disputing such findings raised disputed questions of fact which could not be examined in writ proceedings and that Section 100 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 expressly provides rejection of nomination papers as a ground for filing an election petition.
The Court observed that the challenge raised by the petitioners squarely involved factual disputes regarding alleged encroachment on Panchayat land. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide hotly contested questions of fact requiring evidence. The Court further noted that even allegations regarding absence or inadequacy of summary inquiry could be effectively examined only in election proceedings where evidence can be led.
The Court rejected reliance on precedents permitting limited judicial intervention during elections, holding that such principles do not apply where the relief sought requires factual adjudication. It emphasised that the statutory election petition mechanism is not merely an alternative remedy but the exclusive and efficacious remedy in such circumstances.
Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed. The High Court declined to interfere with the rejection of nomination papers and granted liberty to the petitioners to challenge the same by filing election petitions in accordance with law. The Court observed that, if filed, such election petitions should be decided expeditiously as mandated under the statutory framework.