Just as the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab claims to represent a new era of clean, transparent, and participatory politics, the disturbing scenes that unfolded during the district council and block samiti elections have raised grave questions about the state of democracy in Punjab. Reports and widespread opposition allegations that nomination papers of rival candidates were forcibly snatched, torn, and prevented from being filed strike at the very foundation of democratic governance. The right to contest elections is not a favor granted by any government; it flows directly from the democratic and constitutional framework of India. When candidates are stopped at the nomination stage itself, democracy is not merely weakened—it is choked at its birth.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that free and fair elections are part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution, most notably in the historic judgment of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975). In another landmark ruling, Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Court clarified that the election process is not limited to voting day but is a continuous process that begins with the notification and nomination and ends with the declaration of results. By this constitutional standard, any obstruction at the nomination stage amounts to direct sabotage of the electoral process itself.
District-Wise Pattern of Alleged Democratic Suppression
As the nomination process unfolded, troubling reports emerged from multiple regions of Punjab, suggesting that the incidents were not isolated but part of a wider pattern.
Malwa Region:
In one major district of the Malwa belt, opposition parties alleged that their candidates were physically blocked from entering the nomination complex. According to party representatives, nomination papers were forcibly snatched in full public view, creating chaos and fear. Several candidates were allegedly compelled to withdraw without filing their papers, resulting in uncontested seats. Such incidents, if proven true, directly violate the Supreme Court’s ruling that the nomination stage is inseparable from the election itself.
Majha Region:
From a key district in the Majha belt, clashes were reported outside the offices where nominations were being filed. Opposition leaders accused the local administration of remaining silent spectators while their candidates were harassed and threatened. This raises serious constitutional questions under Article 243K, which places the responsibility of conducting free and fair local elections squarely on the State Election Commission. When administrative neutrality is compromised, the constitutional machinery itself begins to falter.
Doaba Region:
In a district of the Doaba region, independent and opposition candidates reportedly retreated after alleged threats and intimidation. Party workers claimed that fear was deliberately created to ensure uncontested victories. This strikes at the soul of democracy, as Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law, and denying equal opportunity to contest an election violates its very essence.
High-Tension Districts with Police Action:
In another sensitive district, the situation reportedly deteriorated to such an extent that police had to use force to control crowds during the nomination process. Opposition parties alleged that the violence was engineered to disrupt their participation. The very use of force at a stage meant purely for administrative verification of documents reflects the deep politicization of democratic procedures. The Supreme Court has consistently warned that elections conducted under fear cannot be regarded as free or fair.
Uncontested Seats Across Districts:
In several districts, a disturbing number of seats reportedly went uncontested. Opposition parties later claimed that this was not due to lack of candidates but because candidates were allegedly prevented from filing nominations through intimidation and coercion. An uncontested victory achieved through fear is not a democratic success—it is a moral failure.
Local Self-Governance Under Threat
District councils and block samitis form the backbone of grassroots democracy. These institutions control rural development funds, infrastructure planning, and welfare delivery. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment gave constitutional status to Panchayati Raj institutions to ensure decentralization of power. When elections to these bodies are allegedly manipulated at the nomination stage, the constitutional vision of people-centric governance is shattered. Instead of becoming institutions of public empowerment, local bodies risk being reduced to instruments of political dominance.
From Promise of Clean Politics to Allegations of Coercion
What makes these allegations even more painful is the political origin of the AAP itself, which rose to power by promising to end corruption, misuse of power, and political intimidation. Today, critics argue that the party is accused of walking the same path it once condemned. A government confident of its governance record does not need to block opposition at nomination counters; it defeats them in the open arena of the ballot. Victory secured by fear is not the mandate of the people—it is the occupation of power.
Legal and Constitutional Violations
From a constitutional standpoint, such acts violate:
Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Article 19 (Freedom of Expression and Participation in Public Life)
Article 243K, which mandates independent and fair local elections
The Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) held that transparency and fairness are essential to electoral democracy. In Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2019), the Court warned against the growing criminalization of politics. When intimidation enters the nomination process, it directly strengthens this dangerous trend and weakens democratic ethics at the grassroots.
Final Conclusion: Democracy Cannot Survive on Fear and Force
The events witnessed during the district council and block samiti nomination process in Punjab, as alleged by opposition parties and reported from multiple regions, represent far more than routine political rivalry. They point to a serious and systematic weakening of democratic institutions at the grassroots level. When candidates are allegedly prevented from filing nomination papers through intimidation, violence, or administrative silence, the damage is not limited to one election—it strikes at the moral authority of the entire democratic system.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly and unequivocally declared that free and fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution, especially in Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975) and reaffirmed in Mohinder Singh Gill vs CEC (1978). Interference at the nomination stage is therefore not a technical lapse but a constitutional crime against democracy itself.
If such acts go unpunished, a dangerous precedent is set where fear replaces consent, and power replaces legitimacy. Honest citizens withdraw from public life, while aggressive elements gain space. This leads to criminalized politics, decaying governance, and the erosion of public faith in the system.
What the moment demands is independent judicial scrutiny, preferably through High Court monitoring or a judicial commission headed by a retired judge. It requires fixing responsibility at every level—political workers, officials, and those exercising behind-the-scenes influence. Above all, it demands that the State Election Commission discharge its constitutional duty under Article 243K with independence, authority, and courage.
Punjab has an unmatched legacy of sacrifice for democracy and constitutional rights. That legacy must not be tarnished by the normalization of coercion at the nomination desk. The future of local self-governance lies not in uncontested victories secured through fear, but in genuine electoral contests decided freely by the people. Democracy does not demand surrender—it demands participation. And participation cannot survive where intimidation rules the gateway to the ballot