The Punjab High Court clarified the legal principle governing declaration of a defeated candidate as elected when the returned candidate is found disqualified in a panchayat election. The court held that in a two-candidate contest, if the returned candidate is disqualified, the votes cast in their favour are treated as thrown away, and the other candidate may be declared elected if they secure a majority of the remaining valid votes, without requiring proof that voters had notice of the disqualification.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar, Block Samana, District Patiala, held under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (1994 Act). The election was notified on 27.09.2024 with polling scheduled for 15.10.2024. The appellant, a female candidate, was declared elected Sarpanch after securing 474 votes against respondent No.2's 356 votes out of 830 valid votes polled from 1021 total electors. Respondent No.2 challenged the election by filing an election petition under Section 76 of the 1994 Act, alleging the appellant's name did not appear in the voter list of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar, thereby rendering her ineligible to contest.
Key Facts
- Total electors in Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar: 1021
- Total votes polled in the election: 830
- Votes secured by appellant: 474
- Votes secured by respondent No.2: 356
- Date of election notification: 27.09.2024
- Last date for filing nomination: 04.10.2024
- Date of scrutiny of nomination: 05.10.2024
- Date of polling: 15.10.2024
- Date of declaration of result: 15.10.2024
- Appellant declared elected Sarpanch following the 15.10.2024 result
- Respondent No.2 filed election petition assailing appellant's election
- Appellant contended her name appeared in Legislative Assembly Constituency 116-Samana electoral roll at Serial No.1088
- Learned Election Tribunal delivered decision dated 31.10.2025
- Election Tribunal set aside the election, holding appellant ineligible as her name was not in the Gram Panchayat's voter list
- Present appeal filed challenging the Election Tribunal's decision
Procedural History
- 27.09.2024: State Election Commission Punjab issued election notification for Gram Panchayat elections
- 04.10.2024: Last date for filing nomination papers
- 05.10.2024: Scrutiny of nomination papers conducted
- 15.10.2024: Polling held; votes counted; appellant declared elected Sarpanch with 474 votes
- 15.10.2024: Declaration of result
- [Date unspecified]: Respondent No.2 filed election petition under Section 76 of 1994 Act
- 31.10.2025: Learned Election Tribunal passed decision setting aside election and declaring appellant ineligible
- [Date unspecified]: Present appeal filed before High Court challenging Election Tribunal's order
- 17.09.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court (HARKESH MANUJA, J.)
Relief Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the Election Tribunal's order dated 31.10.2025, restore her election as Sarpanch, and have respondent No.2's election petition dismissed. Respondent No.2 sought to uphold the Election Tribunal's finding and have the appeal dismissed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, in a panchayat election with only two candidates where the returned candidate is found disqualified for not being an elector of the specific constituency, the votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate can be treated as thrown away to allow the other candidate to be declared elected without requiring proof that voters had notice of the disqualification prior to polling.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that she was a valid elector as her name appeared in the Legislative Assembly Constituency 116-Samana electoral roll at Serial No.1088, which she argued covered the Gram Panchayat area. She relied on Sanjay Kumar vs. Sher Pal Gujjar and others (2018(3) RCR (Civil) 721) to argue that the Election Tribunal erred by not recording findings on the maintainability of the election petition under Section 76(2) of the 1994 Act. Furthermore, she submitted that even if found ineligible, the Tribunal should have ordered a fresh election under Section 90 of the 1994 Act rather than declaring respondent No.2 elected, as no specific pleadings existed treating her votes as thrown away.
For the Respondent
Respondent No.2 argued that the appellant was disqualified under Section 89(1)(a) of the 1994 Act as her name was absent from the Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar voter list, making her ineligible to contest. She relied on Ramadebi Rautray vs. State of Odisha and others (2026 INSC 243) to assert that where only two candidates contest and the returned candidate is disqualified, the Election Tribunal is bound to declare the other candidate elected if excluding the disqualified candidate's votes leaves the other with a majority of valid votes. She emphasized that no proof of voter notice of disqualification was required in such a two-candidate scenario under the 1994 Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting the absence of any plea regarding maintainability in the appellant's written statement, rejecting the argument that the Election Tribunal failed to address this issue under Section 76(2) of the 1994 Act. It then examined the core disqualification issue, holding that an "elector" under Section 2(h) of the 1994 Act must be entered in the electoral roll of "that constituency" - specifically the Gram Panchayat's constituency (Sabha Area) - not merely any overlapping electoral roll. The Court stated: > "The expression Sabha Area takes its content from Sections 2(y), 2(z) and 4 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, being the territorial area of a Gram Sabha established by notification under Section 3 of that Act, whose members are the persons entered as voters on the electoral roll pertaining to that area. 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."
Finding the appellant's name absent from the Gram Panchayat's voter list, the Court confirmed her disqualification under Section 89(1)(a). Turning to the relief question, the Court analyzed Sections 79, 87, and 90 of the 1994 Act in light of precedent. It expressly disagreed with the UK-derived rule requiring voter notice of disqualification to treat votes as thrown away, stating: > "But in our judgment the rule which has prevailed in the British Courts for a long time has no application in our country. Section 53 of the Representation of The People Act renders a poll necessary only if there are more candidates contesting the election than the number of seats contested. If the number of candidates validly nominated is equal to the number of seats to be filled, no poll is necessary. [...] The rule enunciated by the Courts in the United Kingdom as only the merit of antiquity. But the rule cannot be extended to trial of disputes under our election law, for it is not consistent with our statute law, and in any case the conditions prevailing in our country do not justify the application of that rule."
The Court instead endorsed the principle from Vishwanatha Reddy vs Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and another (1969 AIR SC 604) and Ramadebi Rautray, holding that in a two-candidate contest where the returned candidate is disqualified, their votes are treated as thrown away, and the other candidate is declared elected if they secure a majority of the remaining valid votes. Applying this, the Court noted: total valid votes 830, appellant 474 (disqualified), respondent 356. Excluding the appellant's votes, respondent No.2 received 356 out of 356 remaining votes - a clear majority. Consequently, the Election Tribunal was justified in declaring respondent No.2 elected Sarpanch.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits. The Court upheld the Election Tribunal's order dated 31.10.2025, declaring respondent No.2 as the duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar. No costs were awarded, and no specific compliance timelines were set as the appeal was rejected on substantive grounds.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Two-Candidate Contests Trigger Special Rule
In panchayat elections with only two candidates, if the returned candidate is subsequently found disqualified, the defeated candidate may be declared elected without requiring proof that voters had notice of the disqualification. The Court emphasized that applying a notice requirement would render Section 84 read with Section 101(a) of the Representation of the People Act "practically nugatory" given prevailing illiteracy and linguistic diversity in the electorate. Practitioners should note this exception applies strictly where exactly two candidates contest the seat.
Strict Constituency-Specific Voter Roll Requirement
A candidate's eligibility depends solely on their presence in the electoral roll of the specific panchayat constituency (Sabha Area), not in any overlapping electoral roll such as Legislative Assembly or Parliamentary rolls. The Court clarified that "entry on the roll of any other constituency, howsoever the area may overlap, does not answer that requirement." Election officers and tribunals must verify candidacy against the precise panchayat voter list, and challenges based on absence from that specific roll are valid grounds for declaring an election void under Section 89(1)(a).
No Fresh Election When Alternative Candidate Has Majority
Where the disqualified candidate's removal leaves the other candidate with a majority of the remaining valid votes, the Election Tribunal must declare the other candidate elected rather than ordering a fresh election. The Court held that requiring a fresh election in such circumstances "would amount to a travesty of justice" as it deprives the successful challenger of the fruits of their challenge. This principle applies only when the remaining votes constitute a majority; if not, a fresh election remains necessary.
