The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to interfere with the Punjab municipal election process after petitions challenged the State Election Commission’s decision to conduct polling through ballot papers instead of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Justice Sanjiv Berry observed that although the Supreme Court had earlier expressed support for EVM-based elections, the court could not step into the process at such a late stage when the election schedule had already substantially progressed.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by Ruchita Garg, Preet Kamal Uppal, and Deepak Verma challenging the Punjab State Election Commission’s decision to hold upcoming municipal elections using traditional ballot papers and ballot boxes.
The petitioners argued that the move violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India, where the apex court had refused demands to revert entirely to paper ballots.
They also relied on Rule 48-A of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994, contending that EVMs were intended to be the approved mechanism for municipal voting in Punjab.
During the hearing, the bench referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s observations supporting the continued use of EVMs and VVPAT systems in elections. The High Court quoted the apex court’s remarks that “regressive measures to revert to paper ballots” should generally be avoided unless substantial evidence is shown against EVMs.
At the same time, the High Court noted that the Punjab municipal election rules still retain provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes even after EVM-related provisions were introduced in 2006.
“The reason for retention of the provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes is quite obvious,” the bench observed while noting that there may be situations where election authorities are required to revert to the traditional method.
The court also recorded that there appeared to be a “blame game” between the State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India over the availability and model compatibility of EVMs. However, the bench said it would not enter into that dispute.
The bench emphasized that the election notification had already been issued on May 13, 2026, while the petitions were filed only on May 18 and 19. By the time the matter was heard, the last date for withdrawal of candidature had passed and polling was scheduled for May 26.
“It is now too late in the day for us to pass any order,” the court said while refusing to stall or alter the election process at an advanced stage.
While observing that the Supreme Court’s reasoning may support continued use of EVMs over traditional ballot papers, the High Court ultimately refused to interfere with the ongoing municipal elections due to the delay in approaching the court.
The petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the election process later through an election petition, if advised.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ruchita Garg vs State of Punjab and Others connected matters
Case Number: CWP-PIL-136-2026, CWP-PIL-137-2026 & CWP-15939-2026
Judge: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry
Decision Date: May 22, 2026
