P&H High Court Refuses To Entertain Congress MLA Partap Singh Bajwa's PIL Alleging Threat To Free Municipal Polls, Imposes Costs

The Punjab & Haryana High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Congress MLA and Leader of Opposition in the Punjab assembly Partap Singh Bajwa raising concerns over the conduct of the ongoing Municipal Corporation elections in Punjab.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry permitted Bajwa to withdraw the plea subject to ₹25,000 costs.

Punjab Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi pointed that Bajwa had not not approached the Court with clean hands, as he had failed to disclose an FIR registered against him under Sections 353(2) and 197(1)(d) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The bench clarified that the applicable rules required disclosure of “credentials and the direct or indirect personal motive involved”, especially in PIL proceedings.

Bajwa's counsel submitted the omission was a “bona fide” one and attempted to distinguish the FIR matter as unrelated proceedings.

The Chief Justice orally remarked, “You are becoming a judge of your own cause.” It added that the applicable rules required disclosure of “credentials and the direct or indirect personal motive involved”, especially in PIL.

Bajwa approached the Court alleging that a statement made by Kulwant Singh, MLA from Shutrana (Patiala), posed a serious threat to free and fair elections. The MLA had allegedly stated during a public address that in case of any shortfall in votes, “they will lock the doors and sort it,” while asserting that the ruling side would secure a “17-0” victory with a huge margin.

The plea contended that such remarks amount to an implied threat of booth capturing and electoral manipulation, undermining voter confidence and the integrity of the electoral process. It was further argued that intimidation of voters has consistently been treated by courts as a serious constitutional concern, and that booth capturing constitutes an offence under Section 135A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Highlighting apprehensions of misuse of police and administrative machinery, the petitioner sought preventive directions from the Court prior to polling day, asserting that voters have a constitutional right to cast their vote freely without fear, coercion, or intimidation. The plea also referred to a representation made to the State Election Commission in this regard.

Opposing the plea, Punjab Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi also questioned its maintainability, contending that the petition amounted to a “political interest litigation” filed by a Leader of Opposition. 

The Court further observed that the material fact about the registration of FIR "ought to have been disclosed”.

Faced with the court's observations on suppression and maintainability, Bajwa sought permission to withdraw the PIL. The same was allowed but dismissed the PIL with costs.

Title: Partap Singh Baiwa v. State of Punjab and others

Adv Arshpreet Khadial represented the petitioner.