Ballot Paper Option Retained In Law To Address Ground Realities; Authorities May Revert From EVMs When Needed: P&H High Court
Voters stand in a queue to cast their votes in Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Election in Mathura. | Photo Credit: PTI
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the statutory framework governing municipal elections consciously retains the option of conducting polls through ballot papers and ballot boxes to address prevailing ground realities such as illiteracy, poverty, and logistical constraints.
The Court noted that while Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) have been introduced, the law does not mandate their exclusive use, and authorities may revert to the traditional ballot system where circumstances so require.
These observations were made while dismissing a PIL challenging decision of the State Election Commission to switch from Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to ballot papers in the upcoming Punjab local body polls.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said,
"In our society, where illiteracy; poverty and ignorance continue to plague a large section of society, the Rule making authority intentionally retained the provision of ballot papers and ballot boxes and did not omit the same, while introducing the concept of EVMs in municipal elections. There may be occasions where the Election Commission of India or the State Election Commission may have to revert back to the traditional mode of ballot papers and ballot boxes. As such, the provision for the same in the Rules were and are understandably retained."
The petitioners argued that the SEC's decision violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2025), wherein the top court had discouraged reverting to paper ballots and emphasized the robustness of the EVM-VVPAT system.
Relying on Section 48-A of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994, the petitioners contended that EVMs are the prescribed mode for conducting elections. They further alleged that despite having sufficient time, the SEC failed to requisition EVMs from the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The State represented by AG Maninderjit Singh Bedi and the SEC opposed the petitions on maintainability, arguing the petitions did not meet the requirements of a Public Interest Litigation; and Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution bars judicial interference once the election process has commenced.
The Bench noted that although Section 48-A introduced EVMs into the 1994 Rules, the statutory framework continued to retain provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes.
“The reason for retention… is quite obvious,” the Court observed, adding that in a society where illiteracy and logistical constraints persist, the rule-making authority consciously preserved the option of conducting elections through traditional means.
The Court also took note of the apparent disagreement between the SEC and ECI regarding availability and type of EVMs, but declined to engage in what it termed a “blame game.”
A crucial factor in the Court's decision was the timing of the petitions. The election schedule had been notified on May 13, 2026, while the petitions were filed only on May 18 and 19.
The Court noted that by the time the matter was heard the last date for withdrawal of candidature had passed polling was imminent (May 26); and only final stages of the electoral process remained.
In such circumstances, the Court held that it was “too late in the day” to interfere.
While acknowledging the Supreme Court's observations favoring EVMs over ballot papers, the High Court refused to stall the ongoing election process.
The petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the election outcome, if necessary, through an election petition in accordance with law.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel),
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel), assisted by Mr. Harneet S. Oberoi, Advocate (through video conferencing), Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Avichal Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Ketan Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-PIL-136-2026.
Mr. Paramvir Singh Sunny, Advocate (arguing counsel), Mr. Pardeep K. Bajaj, Advocate,
Mr. Navdeep Khokhar, Advocate, Mr. Manik Moudgill, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-PIL-137-2026.
Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab (arguing counsel), Addl. Advocate General
Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. Advocate General (arguing counsel), assisted by Mr. P.I.P. Singh, Addl. Advocate General Punjab,
Mr. Jastej Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, Advocate General, Punjab,
Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Ms. Kavita Joshi, Advocate, and Ms. Archana, Advocate.
Mr. Aayush Sarna, Advocate, State Election Commission. for respondent No.2 – State Election Commission.
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, Election Commission of India.
Title: Ruchita Garg v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 170