Where only two candidates contest, votes for a disqualified candidate are disregarded and the rival must be declared elected.

The State Election Commission, Punjab notified elections to Gram Panchayats on 27 September 2024, with polling and declaration of results scheduled for 15 October 2024.

The dispute concerned the election for Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar, Block Samana, District Patiala. Of 1,021 electors, 830 votes were polled; the appellant secured 474 votes and respondent No. 2 secured 356 votes, following which the appellant was declared elected.

Respondent No. 2 filed an election petition under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, contending that the appellant’s name was not included in the electoral roll of the Gram Panchayat and that she was therefore ineligible to contest.

The appellant relied upon her entry in the electoral roll of Legislative Assembly Constituency 116-Samana.

The Election Tribunal accepted the petition on 31 October 2025, declared the appellant ineligible, set aside her election, and declared respondent No. 2 elected. The appellant challenged that decision in the present appeal.

Whether a person whose name appears in the electoral roll of the concerned Legislative Assembly constituency, but not in the electoral roll of the relevant Gram Panchayat/Sabha Area, is qualified to contest election for Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat?

Whether, where there were only two candidates and the returned candidate’s election is declared void due to statutory disqualification, the defeated candidate may be declared elected by treating the votes cast for the disqualified candidate as thrown away, or whether a fresh election must be directed?

Whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed for alleged non-compliance with Section 76(2) concerning filing of requisite copies?

Under Sections 2(b), 2(h), 24 and 30 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, each Panchayat constituency must have its own electoral roll, and an “elector” is a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of that particular constituency.

Section 38(4) requires the Returning Officer to verify that the candidate’s name and electoral-roll particulars correspond with the electoral roll. Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 further requires a Gram Panchayat candidate to be an elector in the relevant Sabha Area.

An election is void where the returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen under Section 89(1)(a).

Sections 79, 87 and 90 permit an election petitioner to seek declaration of his or another candidate’s election, and require such candidate to be declared elected where, after excluding the returned candidate’s invalid votes, he obtained a majority of valid votes.

Relying on Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda, 1969 AIR SC 604, and Ramadebi Rautray v. State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 243, the Court held that where only two candidates contested and the returned candidate was statutorily disqualified, the votes cast for that candidate could be treated as thrown away and the other candidate declared elected.

The Court held that the appellant’s entry in the Assembly constituency electoral roll did not satisfy the statutory requirement of being an elector of the Sabha Area of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar.

The statutory scheme required separate electoral rolls for Panchayat constituencies, and the appellant was admittedly absent from the relevant Gram Panchayat electoral roll; she was therefore not qualified to contest.

Her election was consequently void under Section 89(1)(a).

Since only the appellant and respondent No. 2 contested the election, the Court applied the rule in Vishwanatha Reddy, reinforced by Ramadebi Rautray, that the appellant’s votes were to be disregarded as votes cast for a statutorily disqualified candidate.

Respondent No. 2 thereby obtained a majority of the remaining valid votes and was properly declared elected under Section 90.

The reliance on Sanjay Kumar v. Sher Pal Gujjar, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 721, was rejected because it arose under a different statute and did not govern the present statutory framework.

The maintainability objection under Section 76(2) also failed because it had not been pleaded in the written statement or established by evidence.

The Court upheld the finding that the appellant was not an elector of the relevant Gram Panchayat/Sabha Area and was consequently ineligible to contest the election.

Her election as Sarpanch was validly set aside, and respondent No. 2 was correctly declared elected because the appellant’s votes were treated as thrown away in the two-candidate election.

Any pending application was also disposed of.