Election Void if Candidate is Not in Panchayat's Electoral Roll: Punjab & Haryana HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has fortified the sanctity of grassroots democracy, ruling that a candidate must be an elector on the specific electoral roll of a Gram Panchayat to contest for the post of Sarpanch, and entry in a Legislative Assembly roll is insufficient. In a landmark clarification, the Bench held that in a two-way contest, the disqualification of the winner automatically renders the votes cast in their favor as 'thrown away,' necessitating the declaration of the runner-up as the elected representative.
Justice Harkesh Manuja, while adjudicating an appeal against the Election Tribunal's order, emphasized that the scheme of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 and the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 requires distinct electoral rolls for Panchayats to ensure localized representation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the challenge to the disqualification of a Sarpanch whose name was missing from the village electoral roll, despite being a voter in the wider Legislative Assembly constituency.
Key Takeaways
Distinct Electoral Rolls Mandatory
The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that every Panchayat constituency must have its own electoral roll, and being a voter in a Legislative Assembly constituency does not automatically qualify a person to contest local body elections.
The 'Thrown Away' Votes Doctrine
In contests featuring only two candidates, if the winner is found statutorily disqualified, the votes polled by them are treated as non-existent or 'thrown away,' avoiding the need for a fresh election.
Automatic Declaration of Runner-up
Where only one valid candidate remains after a disqualification, the Election Tribunal is duty-bound to declare that candidate as elected to prevent the wastage of public resources on re-polling.
Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Law
The Court reiterated that technical objections regarding the number of copies of an election petition must be pleaded at the earliest stage and cannot be raised for the first time in appeal if not established by evidence.
Panchayat Electoral Roll and Section 89
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the objective of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 is to maintain separate and distinct rolls for local bodies. The Bench emphasized that "The conjoint effect of the provisions noticed above is therefore that a candidate seeking to contest an election to a Gram Panchayat must be an elector borne on the electoral roll of that very Gram Panchayat, and entry on the roll of any other constituency, howsoever the area may overlap, does not answer that requirement."
On the issue of declaring the runner-up as elected, the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on the principle that the 'thrown away' votes rule applies strictly in two-candidate scenarios. The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that the appellant having been disqualified from contesting, the votes casted in her favour were necessarily liable to be treated as thrown away.
Ratio
A candidate seeking to contest an election to a Gram Panchayat under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 must be an elector specifically recorded in the electoral roll of that particular Sabha Area as defined under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Furthermore, in an election involving only two contestants, if the returned candidate is disqualified, the votes cast in their favor are regarded as 'thrown away' under the principles of Vishwanatha Reddy vs Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and another, and the Tribunal must declare the remaining candidate elected provided they secured a majority of the remaining valid votes.
Background
The dispute arose following the Gram Panchayat elections held in October 2024 for village Dera Gajisalar, Punjab. The appellant was declared elected as Sarpanch, having secured 474 votes against the respondent's 356 votes. The respondent challenged this under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, alleging that the appellant’s name did not appear in the village electoral roll.
The appellant contended that her name was present in the electoral roll of the 116-Samana Legislative Assembly Constituency, which covered the village area, and thus she was eligible. The Election Tribunal, Samana, rejected this argument and set aside her election, declaring the respondent as the elected Sarpanch. The appellant moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court , relying on Sanjay Kumar vs. Sher Pal Gujjar and others to argue that a fresh election should have been ordered instead of declaring the respondent elected.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court , however, distinguished Sanjay Kumar vs. Sher Pal Gujjar and others, noting it was based on different legislation and failed to consider the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Vishwanatha Reddy vs Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and another. Referring to the recent judgment in Ramadebi Rautray vs. State of Odisha and others ( "2026 INSC 243": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 531), the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that the Election Tribunal correctly applied Section 90 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 to declare the runner-up as the winner to avoid a 'travesty of justice.'
Case Details:
Case No.: FAO-6346-2025 (O&M)
Neutral Citation: 2026/ PHHC 133508
Case Title: Neelam Rani Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A.S. Thind, Advocate for respondent No.2; Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab
Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 21358
Breaking News
