Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes Election Tribunal order declaring rival candidate Sarpanch, directs fresh adjudication

Case Name: Gagandeep Singh v. SDM-cum-Election Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib & Ors.; Gurpreet Singh v. SDM-cum-Election Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib & Ors.
Date of Judgment: October 01, 2025
Citation: FAO-1809-2025 (O&M) & FAO-1646-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the appeals filed by Gagandeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh, setting aside the order of the Election Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which had declared respondent Pargat Singh Brar as elected Sarpanch of Village Harike Kalan. The Court held that the Tribunal erred both in law and procedure by declaring another candidate elected without fulfilling the statutory conditions under Section 90 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. It also found that the Tribunal failed to frame issues or record evidence, acting contrary to the Civil Procedure Code and settled election jurisprudence.

Summary: The appeals arose from an election petition filed by Pargat Singh Brar challenging Gurpreet Singh’s election as Sarpanch of Harike Kalan in 2024, on grounds that Gurpreet Singh was disqualified under Section 8(1)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 due to conviction under the NDPS Act. The Election Tribunal upheld the objection, declared Gurpreet’s election void, and directly declared Pargat Singh as elected Sarpanch. Gagandeep Singh, another contestant, and Gurpreet Singh both challenged the order.

Justice Pankaj Jain examined Sections 76 to 90 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 and held that an election petitioner can be declared elected only if it is shown that he received a majority of valid votes or that the returned candidate obtained votes through corrupt practices which materially affected the result. Relying on Prakash Khandre v. Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre (2002) 5 SCC 568 and Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015) AIR SC 1921, the Court emphasized that disqualification alone does not automatically entitle another candidate to be declared elected.

The Court also found that the Tribunal had not followed mandatory procedural safeguards—no issues were framed, no evidence recorded, and the petition was decided summarily. Citing Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia (2001) 2 SCC 652 and Sham Lal v. State Election Commission (1997) 1 RCR (Civil) 82, the Court underscored that election disputes affect democratic rights and must be adjudicated with judicial discipline, not administrative expediency.

Decision: The High Court set aside the Election Tribunal’s order dated March 6, 2025, which had declared Pargat Singh Brar elected Sarpanch, and directed the Tribunal to re-decide the election petition afresh after framing issues and recording evidence in accordance with law. It further directed the Chief Secretary, Punjab, to issue instructions to all Election Tribunals across the State to follow due judicial procedure while dealing with election disputes.