Supreme Court Declines to Stall Punjab Civic Polls Amid EVM Row, Holds Ballot Reversion “Imprudent Yet Legally Tenable”
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, May 25, 2026-The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to intervene in the Punjab local body elections scheduled for Monday, May 26, 2026, refusing to entertain a petition that sought to compel the Punjab State Election Commission to replace ballot papers with Electronic Voting Machines for the municipal polls.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi declined to entertain the petition, which had challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to direct the Punjab State Election Commission to use EVMs for the upcoming local body polls
The Court’s Reasoning: Legal Permissibility Over Policy Preference
The bench drew a firm and legally significant distinction between a decision that is unwise and one that is unlawful making clear that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to correcting the former when the latter cannot be established.
Justice Bagchi remarked from the bench “If State Election Commission did not have power to switch to ballot papers, then we would have intervened.”
The Court added that since the rules allow it, ballot papers can be used for the polls.
The bench went further, acknowledging the constitutional and democratic concerns that the use of ballot papers raises, but holding that those concerns could not justify a judicial interruption of an electoral process that was already underway on the eve of polling day.
The Court stated: “Yes, ADR judgment used the word that ballot paper is a regressive step. So, to change this mode when elections are underway should not happen and we can make some observation for future elections.”
The reference to the ADR judgment the landmark ruling by the Association for Democratic Reforms in which the Supreme Court described the return to ballot papers as a regressive step in electoral practice, is a judicial acknowledgement that the State Election Commission’s decision, while legally permissible under the applicable rules, falls short of the standard of democratic best practice that the Court has consistently endorsed.
The bench indicated that appropriate observations may be recorded for the guidance of future elections a signal that the matter is not regarded as closed from a jurisprudential standpoint, even as the immediate electoral relief was refused.
On Booth Capturing and Law and Order
When the petitioner’s counsel raised the spectre of booth capturing as a ground for urgent judicial intervention arguing that the use of physical ballot papers creates a vulnerability to electoral malpractice that EVMs would eliminate the Chief Justice addressed the submission with characteristic directness.
CJI Surya Kant responded: “If that happens then it’s a failure of law and order. That cannot happen.”
The Chief Justice’s response places the responsibility for preventing electoral malpractice squarely where it constitutionally belongs with the law enforcement machinery of the state rather than treating it as a reason for the Court to assume an anticipatory supervisory role over the conduct of the election.
Observer Appointment Refused
The bench was equally unreceptive to a request for the appointment of a senior Indian Police Service officer as an election observer a relief that the petitioner’s counsel sought as an alternative measure to ensure the integrity of the polling process.
Justice Bagchi declined the request, stating “Are we going to presume unfairness in an election. Appointment of an observer is a very serious interdiction and we will not do it.”
The observation is a restatement of a foundational principle of judicial restraint in electoral matters that the courts must not be seen to presume the failure of democratic institutions before those institutions have been given the opportunity to function.
An observer appointed by the Supreme Court on the eve of polling day would carry an institutional message that the election cannot be trusted to proceed without judicial oversight that the bench was plainly unwilling to send.
The High Court Background
The Supreme Court’s dismissal follows the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision on May 22 to decline interference with the State Election Commission’s decision to use ballot papers.
The High Court had reasoned that despite the introduction of EVMs, Punjab Municipal Election Rules have retained the provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes, and that the Rule-making authority had intentionally retained the provision for ballot papers as there may be occasions where the Election Commission of India or the State Election Commission may have to revert back to the traditional mode, given that in a society where illiteracy, poverty, and ignorance continue to affect a large section of society, the traditional method may need to be resorted to.
The High Court’s reasoning, affirmed in effect by the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere, rests on a reading of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules that treats the retention of ballot paper provisions as a deliberate and considered legislative choice one that preserves the Election Commission’s discretion to deploy the method most appropriate to the ground conditions of a particular election.
The Context: EVMs Unavailable Due to Assembly Elections
The State Election Commission had explained its decision to revert to ballot papers on the ground that EVMs were unavailable having been deployed in concurrent state assembly elections across the country and that by the time they could have been made available, it would have been logistically impossible to transport and prepare them in time for the Punjab municipal polls.
That explanation, combined with the clear legal authority conferred by the applicable rules, was sufficient for both the High Court and the Supreme Court to decline the relief sought.
Polling and Counting Schedule
The elections for local bodies across Punjab are scheduled to be held on May 26, with the counting of votes scheduled to take place on May 29 With the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene, the polls will proceed as scheduled, with ballot papers as the method of voting a decision that the highest court in the land has characterised as legally permissible, institutionally regrettable, and judicially beyond interference at this stage of the electoral process.
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi represented the petitioner before the Supreme Court.
Matter: Appeal against Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated May 22, 2026 | Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi | Date of Order: May 25, 2026 | Petitioner’s Counsel: Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi
