Introduction:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified that the mere possession or ownership of a dwelling house does not qualify a person as an “ordinarily resident” under the Punjab Election Commission Act. The judgment came in the context of a plea filed by Gurmej, challenging the State Election Commission’s dismissal of his request to be recognized as a voter in a specific tehsil. The petitioner argued that his name had been erroneously transferred across various constituencies despite being a resident of Kua Diary, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner contended that he was an “ordinarily resident” of Kua Diary, with his name initially listed in the voter rolls there post-delimitation. He claimed that subsequent objections and administrative changes led to his name being transferred to Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, then to Govindpura Pind, and finally to another ward in G.P. Datul. The petitioner emphasized that these changes were arbitrary and based on a flawed report by Halka Patwari. Despite a favourable report by a committee constituted by the SEC affirming his residence in Kua Diary, his plea was dismissed by the SEC, citing procedural grounds.

The State Election Commission, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioner should approach the Electoral Registration Officer to resolve his grievance. It argued that the impugned order was passed following due consideration and that the dismissal was consistent with established procedures. The SEC also highlighted that the petitioner’s challenge was rendered moot as the elections had already concluded.

Court’s Judgment:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, after hearing the submissions, delved into the statutory interpretation of the term “ordinarily resident.” It emphasized that the concept entails more than merely owning or occupying a house within a constituency. The Court noted that an individual’s habitual presence and active association with a constituency are critical in determining their status as an “ordinarily resident” voter.

The bench acknowledged the procedural inconsistencies in the SEC’s handling of the case. However, it highlighted that since the elections had already been conducted, there was no practical need to interfere further with the impugned order. The Court underscored that the right to vote is a fundamental privilege that begins at the micro-level constituencies, extending to state and parliamentary elections. It observed that an eligible voter listed in a Gram Panchayat constituency automatically gains the privilege to participate in broader elections.

While dismissing the petition, the Court called for better adherence to statutory provisions and emphasized that the SEC must ensure clarity and consistency in its decisions. It also reiterated that eligible voters must not be deprived of their fundamental right to vote due to procedural lapses or administrative errors.