“Going Back to the Orthodox Method of Ballot Papers and Ballot Boxes May Not Be Appropriate” — Punjab & Haryana HC Declines to Halt Punjab Municipal Polls Conducted Through Ballot Papers

Case Name: Ruchita Garg v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 22 May 2026

Citation: CWP-PIL-136-2026 and connected matters

Bench: Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to interfere with the Punjab State Election Commission’s decision to conduct municipal elections through ballot papers instead of EVMs, observing that although the Supreme Court had deprecated reverting to the traditional ballot paper system, the petitions were filed at a highly belated stage after commencement of the election process. The Court granted liberty to challenge the election process through an election petition after completion of polls.

Summary: The petitions raised a public cause challenging the decision of the Punjab State Election Commission to conduct municipal elections in Punjab through ballot papers and ballot boxes instead of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The petitioners argued that the move violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, wherein the Apex Court strongly endorsed the EVM-VVPAT system and discouraged reverting to traditional ballot paper voting.

The High Court extensively reproduced portions of the Supreme Court’s observations emphasizing the reliability of EVMs, absence of evidence of tampering, and the need to avoid “regressive measures” such as reverting to paper ballots. The Bench noted that the Supreme Court had stressed that distrust unsupported by substantial evidence could undermine democratic institutions.

The petitioners relied upon Rule 48-A of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 to argue that EVMs were the only permissible mode for conducting municipal elections. They further contended that despite sufficient time, the State Election Commission failed to properly requisition EVMs from the Election Commission of India.

On the other hand, the State Election Commission argued that the petitions were not maintainable as Public Interest Litigations once the election process had commenced and that Article 243ZG of the Constitution barred judicial interference during the ongoing election process. It was also contended that issues arose regarding availability and compatibility of EVM models.

The High Court held that although EVMs were introduced through Rule 48-A in 2006, the statutory framework consciously retained provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes under several rules of the 1994 Rules. The Court observed that the rule-making authority intentionally preserved the traditional voting mechanism considering practical realities such as illiteracy, poverty, and possible contingencies requiring a return to ballot papers.

Importantly, the Bench observed that it may have been persuaded by the Supreme Court’s view that reverting to ballot papers may not be appropriate. However, since the election programme had already substantially progressed and the petitions were filed belatedly after issuance of election notification and near polling dates, the Court declined interference at that stage.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the petitions without interfering in the ongoing municipal election process being conducted through ballot papers. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to challenge the election process subsequently by way of election petitions if so advised.