Days before Punjab heads into municipal elections, the Punjab and Haryana High Court chose not to disrupt the State Election Commission’s decision to conduct polling through traditional ballot papers instead of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The elections are slated for May 26, while counting is scheduled for May 29.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry held that Punjab’s municipal election framework still consciously preserves provisions for ballot papers and ballot boxes, even after EVMs were introduced into the system.
The Bench pointed out that the rule-makers deliberately retained the older voting mechanism, recognizing that circumstances could arise where authorities may need to return to paper ballots.
According to the Court, social realities such as illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness among sections of the population continue to make the retention of ballot-based voting provisions relevant. The judges observed that both the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission must retain flexibility to revert to conventional voting methods whenever required.
The Court also underlined that the petitions arrived far too late for judicial intervention. The election programme had already been announced on May 13, while the challenges were filed only on May 18 and 19.
The Bench remarked that although earlier observations made by the Supreme Court favouring EVM-based voting could have carried persuasive value, the delayed approach by the petitioners prevented the Court from stepping in at this stage.
Refusing to interfere with the ongoing election process, the Court left the door open for the petitioners to challenge the polls later through election petitions if they choose to do so.
The petitions had attacked the State Election Commission’s move to abandon EVMs for the civic polls, arguing that the shift ran contrary to judicial precedents that discouraged reverting to ballot papers.
The Punjab government and the State Election Commission, however, opposed the pleas and questioned whether such petitions were maintainable once the electoral process had already begun.
