{"id":147658,"date":"2008-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-30T03:27:03","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T21:57:03","slug":"manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                          C.W.P. No. 10666 &amp; 10667 of 2008\n                                          DATE OF DECISION : 26.09.2008\n\nManjit Kaur\n                                                          .... PETITIONER\n\n                                   Versus\n\nPunjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh and others\n\n                                                       ..... RESPONDENTS\n\n                                                  C.W.P. No. 10668 of 2008\n                                          DATE OF DECISION : 26.09.2008\n\nBalwinder Kaur\n                                                          .... PETITIONER\n\n                                   Versus\n\nPunjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh and others\n\n                                                       ..... RESPONDENTS\n\nCORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH\n\n\nPresent:      Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate,\n              for the petitioners.\n\n              Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab,\n              for the respondents.\n\n                          ***\n\nSATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>              This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 10666 to<\/p>\n<p>10668 of 2008. CWPs No. 10666 and 10667 of 2008 have been filed by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 10666 of 2008                                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Manjit Kaur, who was a candidate for the election of Panch of Gram<\/p>\n<p>Panchayat, Village Rohjari, District Jalandhar, from the seat reserved for<\/p>\n<p>Scheduled Caste (Women). CWP No. 10668 of 2008 has been filed by<\/p>\n<p>Balwinder Kaur, who had withdrawn her nomination paper for contesting<\/p>\n<p>the election of Panch from the aforesaid reserve seat.\n<\/p>\n<p>            In all these three petitions, the petitioners have prayed for<\/p>\n<p>quashing three separate orders dated 24.5.2008, whereby Additional Deputy<\/p>\n<p>Commissioner (General) Jalandhar, while rejecting the nomination papers of<\/p>\n<p>Smt. Bholi, Smt. Kiran and Smt. Paramjit Kaur, filed by them to contest the<\/p>\n<p>election for the post of Panch from the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste<\/p>\n<p>(Women), ordered to countermand the poll only to the post of Panch<\/p>\n<p>reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). The petitioners have further prayed<\/p>\n<p>for issuing direction to the official respondents to declare Smt. Manjit Kaur<\/p>\n<p>(petitioner in CWPs No. 10666 and 10667 of 2008) as elected unopposed to<\/p>\n<p>the post of Panch reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women).<\/p>\n<p>            In the present case, as per Section 10 of the Punjab Panchayati<\/p>\n<p>Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act&#8217;), the aforesaid Gram<\/p>\n<p>Panchayat consists of 5 Panches. As per Section 11 of the Act, one seat of<\/p>\n<p>Panch is reserved for General, one for Women, one for Backward Class, one<\/p>\n<p>for Scheduled Caste and one for Scheduled Caste (Women).<\/p>\n<p>            For the post of Panch, reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women),<\/p>\n<p>6 nomination papers were filed i.e. by Manjit Kaur (petitioner in CWPs No.<\/p>\n<p>10666 and 10667 of 2008), Balwinder Kaur (petitioner in CWP No. 10668<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 10666 of 2008                                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of 2008), Krishna, Bholi, Kiran and Paramjit Kaur. However, Balwinder<\/p>\n<p>Kaur and Krishna withdrew their candidature on 19.5.2008. After scrutiny,<\/p>\n<p>in spite of the objections raised by Manjit Kaur and Balwinder Kaur,<\/p>\n<p>nomination papers of Bholi, Kiran and Paramjit Kaur were accepted.<\/p>\n<p>            Aggrieved against the acceptance of the nomination papers of<\/p>\n<p>Bholi and Kiran, petitioner Manjit Kaur filed CWPs No. 8879 and 8907 of<\/p>\n<p>2008, seeking direction to respondent No.5 to reject their nomination<\/p>\n<p>papers. Similarly, aggrieved against the acceptance of the nomination paper<\/p>\n<p>of Paramjit Kaur, petitioner Balwinder Kaur filed CWP No. 8909 of 2008,<\/p>\n<p>seeking the same direction.\n<\/p>\n<p>            All the aforesaid three petitions were disposed of by this Court<\/p>\n<p>on 22.5.2008, with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the<\/p>\n<p>representation filed by the petitioners in accordance with law, before<\/p>\n<p>24.5.2008. In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.3 passed the<\/p>\n<p>impugned orders and held that the Returning Officer has wrongly accepted<\/p>\n<p>the nomination papers of the aforesaid three persons. Consequently, their<\/p>\n<p>nomination papers were rejected and countermanding of the poll only to the<\/p>\n<p>post of Panch, reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women) was ordered.<\/p>\n<p>            A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the nomination<\/p>\n<p>paper of Smt. Bholi was rejected on the ground that her husband Darshan<\/p>\n<p>Ram is in unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat land and a case for his<\/p>\n<p>eviction is pending in the Court of Collector, Jalandhar, therefore, Smt.<\/p>\n<p>Bholi was ineligible to contest the election. The nomination paper of Smt.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 10666 of 2008                                                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Kiran was rejected on the ground that she belongs to Christian community<\/p>\n<p>and the SC certificate of her father has been cancelled by SDM, Jalandhar-2.<\/p>\n<p>Further, it was observed that as per the directions of the Government of<\/p>\n<p>Punjab, Christian community falls in Backward Class. Therefore, Smt.<\/p>\n<p>Kiran was ineligible to contest the election for the post of Panch, reserved<\/p>\n<p>for SC (Women). The nomination paper of Smt. Paramjit Kaur was rejected<\/p>\n<p>on the ground that her husband, namely Sh. Joginder Singh, is in<\/p>\n<p>unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat land and a case for his eviction is<\/p>\n<p>pending in the Court of Collector, Jalandhar, therefore, Smt. Paramjit Kaur<\/p>\n<p>was ineligible to contest the election.\n<\/p>\n<p>             It is the case of the petitioners that when out of 6 candidates for<\/p>\n<p>the post of Panch, reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women), 2 candidates<\/p>\n<p>withdrew their nomination papers and the the nomination papers of 3<\/p>\n<p>candidates were rejected, then only petitioner remained in field, therefore, in<\/p>\n<p>stead of countermanding the election of the said seat, petitioner Manjit Kaur<\/p>\n<p>should have been declared elected as unopposed, in view of the provisions<\/p>\n<p>contained in Section 54 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994<\/p>\n<p>(hereinafter referred to as `the Election Commission Act&#8217;).<\/p>\n<p>             In none of the petitions, the petitioners have impleaded Smt.<\/p>\n<p>Bholi, Smt. Kiran and Smt. Paramjit Kaur, as respondents, though they are<\/p>\n<p>the interested parties in the dispute involved in the case. Written statements<\/p>\n<p>on behalf of the respondents have been filed in all the three cases.<\/p>\n<p>             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 10666 of 2008                                               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the contents of the petition as well as the written statement.<\/p>\n<p>             Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when out of 6<\/p>\n<p>candidates for the post of Panch reserved for the Scheduled Caste (Women),<\/p>\n<p>2 had withdrawn their nomination papers on 19.5.2008 and vide orders<\/p>\n<p>dated 24.5.2008, nomination papers of the aforesaid 3 candidates were<\/p>\n<p>rejected, then in view of Section 54 of the Election Commission Act,<\/p>\n<p>petitioner Manjit Kaur should have been declared elected unopposed as<\/p>\n<p>Panch from the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women), being the only<\/p>\n<p>candidate. He submits that the election could have been countermanded<\/p>\n<p>only in the circumstances, as mentioned in Section 60 of the Election<\/p>\n<p>Commission Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>             On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that<\/p>\n<p>in the facts and circumstances of the case, after rejecting the nomination<\/p>\n<p>papers of 3 candidates, respondent No.3 was fully justified in<\/p>\n<p>countermanding the polls for one post of Panch, reserved for Scheduled<\/p>\n<p>Caste (Women), as names of those 3 candidates were already notified as<\/p>\n<p>candidates for the election to the post of Panch, reserved for Scheduled<\/p>\n<p>Caste (Women) and ballot papers had already been printed.<\/p>\n<p>             After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n<p>we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n<p>respondent No.3 was fully justified in countermanding the election for one<\/p>\n<p>post of Panch, reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women).\n<\/p>\n<p>             Undisputedly, on the day of scrutiny, the Returning Officer,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 10666 of 2008                                                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>after examining the nomination papers and hearing the objections of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners, accepted the nomination papers of the aforesaid 3 candidates.<\/p>\n<p>The nomination papers of two other candidates were also accepted.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, except the two, none of them withdrew her nomination paper.<\/p>\n<p>Immediately after the expiry of the period within which the candidature may<\/p>\n<p>be withdrawn, the Returning Officer prepares and publishes a list of<\/p>\n<p>contesting candidates, in terms of Section 43 (1) of the Election<\/p>\n<p>Commission Act. Undisputedly, in the present case also, list of the<\/p>\n<p>contesting candidates against one seat of Panch, reserved for Scheduled<\/p>\n<p>Caste (Women) was prepared and published. Thereafter, symbols were also<\/p>\n<p>allotted to all the contesting candidates and ballot papers were printed. The<\/p>\n<p>poll was to take place on 26.5.2008. Before the date of election, the<\/p>\n<p>aforesaid orders, cancelling the nomination papers of 3 candidates, were<\/p>\n<p>passed on 24.5.2008. Though in the Act or in the Election Commission Act,<\/p>\n<p>there is no provision for rejection of the nomination papers, after their<\/p>\n<p>acceptance, but the orders dated 24.5.2008 were passed by respondent No.3<\/p>\n<p>on the basis of the orders, passed by this Court, whereby representations of<\/p>\n<p>the petitioners were ordered to be considered and decided in accordance<\/p>\n<p>with law, before 24.5.2008. Since the elections for one seat of Panch,<\/p>\n<p>reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women) were postponed, therefore, the<\/p>\n<p>aforesaid 3 candidates, whose nomination papers have been rejected, might<\/p>\n<p>not have challenged those orders. Since those 3 candidates have not been<\/p>\n<p>impleaded as respondents, we are not aware whether they have challenged<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 10666 of 2008                                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the orders dated 24.5.2008 or not. In our view, when after the expiry of the<\/p>\n<p>period within which candidature may be withdrawn, the list of contesting<\/p>\n<p>candidates was prepared and published and the ballot papers were prepared,<\/p>\n<p>then there was no occasion for the Returning Officer to declare the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner to be elected as unopposed Panch under Section 54 of the<\/p>\n<p>Election Commission Act, which provision reads as under :<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;Procedure in contested and uncontested elections &#8211; (1) If<br \/>\n            the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of<br \/>\n            seats to be filled, a poll shall be taken.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                  (2) If the number of such candidates is equal to the<br \/>\n            number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall<br \/>\n            forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill<br \/>\n            those seats.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                  (3) If the number of such candidates is less than the<br \/>\n            numbers of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall<br \/>\n            forthwith declare all such candidates to be elected and the<br \/>\n            Election Commission shall, by notification in the Office<br \/>\n            Gazette, call upon the constituency or the elected members, to<br \/>\n            elect a person or persons to fill the remaining seat or seats, as<br \/>\n            the case may be :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                  Provided that where the constituency or the elected<br \/>\n            members having already been called upon under this sub-<br \/>\n            section, has or have failed to elect a person or the requisite<br \/>\n            number of persons, as the case may be, to fill the vacancy or<br \/>\n            vacancies, the Election Commission shall not be bound to call<br \/>\n            again upon the constituency, or such members to elect a person<br \/>\n            or persons until it is satisfied that if called upon again, there<br \/>\n            will be no such failure on the part of the constituency of such<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> CWP No. 10666 of 2008                                                -8-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            members.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>On 24.5.2008, when the nomination papers of 3 candidates were rejected by<\/p>\n<p>respondent No.3 on the representations made by the petitioners, names of all<\/p>\n<p>the candidates have already been published and they were allotted symbols<\/p>\n<p>and their names also figured in the ballot papers, therefore, it was felt by<\/p>\n<p>respondent No.3 that the election for one seat of Panch, reserved for<\/p>\n<p>Scheduled Caste (Women) should be countermanded. If the nomination<\/p>\n<p>papers of these three candidates would have rejected on 19.5.2008, then the<\/p>\n<p>two candidates, who had withdrawn their nomination papers on 19.5.2008,<\/p>\n<p>might not have withdrawn their nomination papers. Thus, in our opinion, on<\/p>\n<p>that date i.e. 24.5.2008, respondent No.3 was having no power to declare<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner elected as unopposed. This could have been done on the day<\/p>\n<p>of withdrawal of the nomination papers i.e. on 19.5.2008, if after the<\/p>\n<p>withdrawal of other nomination papers only one candidate remains in<\/p>\n<p>contest for one post. This was not the position in this case on 19.5.2008.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere<\/p>\n<p>in the impugned orders, passed by respondent No.3 in exercise of our power<\/p>\n<p>under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Dismissed.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n                                        ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )\n                                                JUDGE\n\n\nSeptember 26, 2008                         ( JASWANT SINGH )\nndj                                              JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10666 &amp; 10667 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 26.09.2008 Manjit Kaur &#8230;. PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh and others &#8230;.. RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 10668 of 2008 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-29T21:57:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T21:57:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1772,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T21:57:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-29T21:57:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T21:57:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008"},"wordCount":1772,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008","name":"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T21:57:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-kaur-vs-punjab-state-election-commission-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manjit Kaur vs Punjab State Election Commission on 26 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}