UPSC Darpan

Polity & GovernanceGS29 October 2026

Supreme Court’s commission report details torn nominations and bogus voting in Punjab civic polls

Open in the app — quiz, notes, Mistake Vault हिंदी में पढ़ें

The news

New Delhi, October 8. The 239-page report of the one-man fact-finding Commission appointed by the Supreme Court, former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Nirmaljit Kaur, shows how the December 2024 Punjab local body polls were subverted, The Indian Express reports; only the set-aside was known earlier. It found candidates forcibly prevented from filing nominations, illegally detained, and their papers snatched and torn in police presence, besides intimidation and bogus voting. In Patiala it found “chaos, violence, snatching, tearing of nomination papers” on 11.12.2024, after which only Aam Aadmi Party candidates were declared elected unopposed. The State’s failure to preserve CCTV footage of the Mini Secretariat was “sheer negligence inviting adverse inference”. In Dharamkot (Moga) police ignored High Court directions to escort candidates. It recommended setting aside 50 wards, 28 in Patiala and 22 in Moga; the Court accepted this on September 28.

The chain in one line: Civic polls in December 2024 → rivals’ nominations blocked and wards returned unopposed → Supreme Court appoints a fact-finding commission → 239-page report finds police connivance and missing CCTV → fresh polls ordered in 50 wards

Static syllabus linkage

  1. The State Election Commission superintends all local-body elections. Article 243K vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and panchayat elections in a State Election Commission appointed by the Governor; Article 243ZA extends this to municipalities. The State Election Commissioner can be removed only in the manner of a High Court judge.
  2. Courts may not question a local election except through an election petition. Article 243-O, and Article 243ZG for municipalities, says no local election shall be called in question except by an election petition under State law. It mirrors Article 329(b), which N.P. Ponnuswami (1952) read as barring interference with an ongoing election.

Why UPSC loves this

  1. Local democracy is tested on the integrity of its elections. GS2 asks about “devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein”; this report documents one such challenge.

Prelims nuggets

  • Under Article 243K, the State Election Commissioner is appointed by the Governor and can be removed only like a judge of a High Court.
  • Article 243ZA extends the State Election Commission’s control to elections to municipalities.
  • Articles 243-O and 243ZG provide that local-body elections can be questioned only by an election petition under State law.
  • The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 added Part IXA on municipalities to the Constitution.

Analysis

  1. An unopposed win is the hardest rigging to undo. When a rival never reaches the nomination table, no ballot is cast and nothing is left to recount. An election petition suits disputes over counting, and asks the loser to prove a case against a State that holds the records. That explains why the Supreme Court used its own commission despite the usual bar in Article 243-O.
  2. Lens — Independence and accountability: a protected referee is weak if the State controls the stewards. The State Election Commissioner enjoys a High Court judge’s removal protection, yet the returning officers and police the report faults answer to the State government. A thoughtful officer would add accountability where the damage happened: a duty to preserve nomination-day footage and action against complicit officials.
  3. Missing footage now counts against the State. Punjab argued that no candidate asked for the CCTV to be preserved. The Commission rejected this, because the State is the custodian of records. This shifts the burden of proof onto the authority that controls the evidence.

Possible Mains question

Unopposed victories in local-body elections may signal manipulation rather than consensus. Examine the role of the State Election Commission in light of Punjab’s 2024 civic polls. (10 marks, 150 words)

Model approach

  1. Directive — Examine. Probe the SEC’s powers and limits using the report’s findings.
  2. Introduction — Article 243K makes the SEC the referee. About 20 words: SEC mandate and the 50 wards set aside.
  3. Body — torn nominations produced unopposed wins no petition could cure. Value addition: the Commission’s ‘adverse inference’ for missing CCTV footage.
  4. Body — the SEC depends on State police and returning officers. Draw a flowchart: nomination, scrutiny, polling, result, marking where State machinery acts.
  5. Conclusion — an SEC that can command its own staff. Mandatory footage preservation and security on nomination day.

Administrator's brainstorm

As State Election Commissioner, how would you conduct the fresh polls in the 50 wards?

I would deploy observers from outside the two districts and run nomination filing under continuous CCTV, preserved until results are final. Police from neutral units would escort any candidate seeking protection. Any rejected nomination would need written reasons and a same-day review.