The Supreme Court has said that every Punjab municipal ward where the court-appointed Fact-Finding Commission headed by former High Court judge Justice Nirmaljit Kaur found violence must go for re-election, after the State of Punjab agreed to accept the Commission’s report.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that every ward in the Punjab municipal elections where a court-appointed Fact-Finding Commission found that violence had taken place must go for re-election, after the State of Punjab agreed to accept the Commission’s report, in a batch of petitions by candidates of various political parties challenging the conduct of the polls [Seema Sharma v. State of Punjab].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation on Monday (September 28). The written order is awaited, and the report of the Commission has not been reviewed by LawChakra.
The case
The petitioners alleged that members of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), police personnel and others had prevented them from submitting their nomination papers, allegedly through physical assault, the tearing of clothes and the snatching of nomination forms. They further claimed that the nomination process had not been video-recorded despite judicial directions, and that polls to certain posts, including those of Mayor and Senior Deputy Mayor, were being held without a complete quorum. They also sought to restrain candidates declared elected unopposed in some wards from taking oath, arguing that those results flowed from their being kept out of the contest.
These are the petitioners’ allegations, and the respondents’ stand on the specific claims is not reflected in reports of Monday’s hearing. Reports indicate that the dispute centred substantially on the Patiala Municipal Corporation polls.
Why a Commission was appointed
In March 2025, a Bench of then Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh took the view that the disputes turned on questions of fact which could not be determined by the High Court or the Supreme Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and that the pending litigation was creating uncertainty over the functioning of the elected municipal bodies. With the consent of the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court constituted the Fact-Finding Commission under Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, asking her to inquire into the candidates’ grievances, preferably on a day-to-day basis, and to submit a report. The Court had then recorded that the appointment of the Commission would not be a precedent.
What was said in Court
On Monday, the State of Punjab told the Court that it agreed to the report placed before the Bench, and the Court accepted the report. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asked the Bench to ensure that the arrangement is not treated as a precedent, submitting, “Please make sure this is not treated as precedent.” The Court accepted the submission.
Counsel then pointed out that the report contained allegations against government officials, telling the Bench, “There are allegations against govt officials in the report. But till date, no action taken. 2 years have passed.” The Chief Justice of India responded, “Case was pending here. Now report is accepted, they will have to act upon.”
Why it matters
The order shows the unusual route the Supreme Court took to a dispute that turned on contested facts. Instead of deciding the competing versions in writ jurisdiction, it relied on a consent-based inquiry by a former High Court judge, and that route has now led to a direction for fresh polls after the State accepted the findings. Both the Court in 2025 and Mr Sibal on Monday were careful to record that the arrangement is not to be treated as a precedent, which signals that it was fashioned for this dispute rather than as a template for election litigation.
Several questions remain open until the written order is available, including the precise list of wards, the timeline for re-election and the steps to be taken on the portions of the report concerning officials. The allegations against officials referred to in Court are untested, no view has been expressed on them, and the Court’s observation that the authorities must now act on the report is not a finding on any individual.
Case Title: Seema Sharma v. State of Punjab [SLP (C) No. 3894/2025 and connected matters]
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal