Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2026:RJ-JP:43402]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21252/2026
CNR: RJHC021022042026 | URN: CW / 44558U / 2026

Balveer Singh ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (2) The State Election Commission, Through Its Chief Electoral Officer, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (3) The District Election Officer (Panchayats)/district Collector, District Karauli. (4) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Todabhim, District Karauli. ----Respondents

Connected with
(2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20422/2026 — Ramswaroop Khichar ----Petitioner
(3) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21208/2026 — Chandveer Singh ----Petitioner
(4) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20316/2026 — Chiterlal Suman ----Petitioner
(5) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20809/2026 — Hanuman Singh and Lahri ----Petitioners
(6) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20359/2026 — Siya Ram ----Petitioner
(7) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20442/2026 — Nirmal Singh, Pawan Singh, Mukesh Kumar Saini, Rahul Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Ganesh Singh and Ravi Prakash Saini ----Petitioners
(8) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20605/2026 — Kailash ----Petitioner
(9) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20606/2026 — Arjun ----Petitioner
(10) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20704/2026 — Sultan Singh Meena ----Petitioner
(11) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20713/2026 — Sahab Singh ----Petitioner
(12) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20781/2026 — Babulal Meena ----Petitioner
(13) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20788/2026 — Kuldeep Singh Meena and Sharmishta Meena ----Petitioners
(14) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20898/2026 — Dinesh ----Petitioner
(15) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20918/2026 — Pushkar Singh ----Petitioner
(16) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20924/2026 — Rohitash ----Petitioner
(17) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20926/2026 — Satyavir Singh ----Petitioner
(18) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20927/2026 — Nand Kishor Choudhary ----Petitioner
(19) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20930/2026 — Mukesh ----Petitioner
(20) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20931/2026 — Rajesh Kumar ----Petitioner
(21) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20932/2026 — Kasim Khan ----Petitioner
(22) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20934/2026 — Vinay Pal Singh ----Petitioner
(23) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20936/2026 — Vinod Kumar ----Petitioner
(24) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21007/2026 — Lokesh Kumar Meena ----Petitioner
(25) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21011/2026 — Rakesh Kumar Sharma ----Petitioner
(26) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21029/2026 — Kamlesh ----Petitioner
(27) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21167/2026 — Bhojraj Sharma ----Petitioner
(28) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21501/2026 — Shambhu Singh Rajawat ----Petitioner
(29) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21503/2026 — Shambhu Singh Rajawat ----Petitioner
(30) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21504/2026 — Kamal Din Khan ----Petitioner

For Petitioners: Mr. R.N. Mathur Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sikhwal Advocate. Mr. Dilip Singh Kurka Advocate. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduwanshi Advocate. Mr. R.P. Garg Advocate. Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ankit Agarwal Advocate. Mr. G.S. Gauttam Advocate. Ms. Sakshi Meena Advocate. Mr. Naseemuddin Qazi Advocate. Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Advocate. Mr. A.R. Meena Advocate. Mr. Pushpendra Pal Singh Advocate. Mr. Raj Jumar Sharma Advocate. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya Advocate. Ms. Mansi Singh Advocate. Mr. Akash Sharma Advocate. Mr. Himanshu Jain Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur Additional Advocate General. Mr. Ashutosh Udawat Advocate. Mr. Prateek Saxena Advocate. Mr. Shashwat Dhankar Advocate. Mr. Tanmay Sharma Advocate. Ms. Simran Sharma Advocate. Mr. Amit Kuri Advocate with Mr. Ayush Sharma Advocate, Mr. Dharma Ram Advocate.

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the common judgment (hcraj file 205200212522026_1.pdf, 28 pages, uploaded 27.10.2026). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-24 are the Court's own. (2) The cause title (pages 1-16 of the PDF) is abridged: for each of the 30 writ petitions the serial number and case number are given as printed, with the petitioners' names only; their parentage, ages and addresses are omitted. The respondents are listed only for the lead petition; in the connected petitions they are the State of Rajasthan and/or the State Election Commission and district election, revenue and Panchayat Samiti officials, as printed in the PDF. CNR/URN numbers are shown for the lead petition only. The advocates' appearances are given in running form. (3) The judgment prints no 'Reportable' mark. (4) Quoted matter (paragraphs 31-40 of the Babu Singh judgment in paragraph 18, which itself quotes paragraphs 4 and 10 of the Division Bench order in Giriraj Singh) is kept inline within paragraph 18; within that quotation a passage of the Giriraj Singh extract appears twice in the print and is kept as printed. (5) A word divided across a line without a hyphen in the quotation ('bee' / 'n fixed') is joined as 'been fixed'. The text is otherwise as printed, including 'learned counsels' (paragraph 4), 'wherefor' (paragraph 9), 'beofe', 'alloment', 'the petitioners seeks' and 'the present writ petitions, insofar as it seeks' within the quotation (paragraph 18), and 'Raj Jumar Sharma' in the appearances. Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff line and the TCPDF line) is removed. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 26.10.2026.]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

26/10/2026

1. Defects, if any, pointed out by the Registry are waived.

2. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are identical and interconnected, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The present batch of writ petitions raises grievances concerning various aspects of the ensuing elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan, including reservation and rotation of seats, allotment of reserved constituencies through lottery, preparation and correction of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies and other issues relating to the election process. Since the election programme dated 03.10.2026 has already been issued, a common question arises as to whether this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine such grievances after commencement of the election process, particularly in view of the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1994’) and the rules framed thereunder.

4. It has been argued by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners that election programme dated 03.10.2026 would not fall within the ambit of election notification, which is otherwise issued as per Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1994’) by the concerned District Election Officer (Panchayat) under the general directions of the State Election Commission. In the instant cases, so far as Gram Panchayats involved in the instant writ petitions are concerned, no notification under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1994 has been issued. Hence, it cannot be said that the bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India would apply.

5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even otherwise, the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India shall be applicable only in respect of those matters where the elections can otherwise be challenged by way of election petition as per the law enacted by the Legislature of the State, whereas in the instant cases, in so many matters, the petitioners are not the persons, who are participating or intend to participate in the election process. Therefore, the petitioners cannot file any election petition in respect of the issues raised in the present writ petitions. It is asserted that it is settled proposition of law that no person can be left remediless, therefore, the petitioners cannot be non-suited while relying upon Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.

6. In some of the matters, grievance of the petitioners is that the procedure for reservation as contemplated in Article 243D of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 has not been followed. Either the seats have been reserved contrary to the rotation prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 or the reservation, which was assigned in the last elections, has again been repeated in violation of the constitutional and statutory provisions.

7. In some of the matters, the grievance raised by the petitioners is that the electoral rolls have not been prepared as per the procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1994 and the petitioners have either been ousted from the electoral rolls or their names have been shown in the electoral rolls of wrong gram panchayats.

8. In a few matters, issue with regard to delimitation of constituencies and ancillary issues relating to election process have also been raised by the petitioners.

9. While responding to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that under the provisions of the Act of 1994 and Rule 23 of the Rules of 1994, election programme is issued by the State Election Commission for the entire State, where districtwise/panchayatwise details are prescribed. After general directions are given by the State Election Commission in its election programme, District Election Officer concerned issues notices under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1994 for particular Gram Panchayat wherefor, for the purpose of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1994 as well as Article 243K of the Constitution of India, the election programme issued by the State Election Commission on 03.10.2026 shall be taken to be a notification under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1994 and Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that after issuance of election programme on 03.10.2026, in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, no writ petition, which is likely to affect the smooth and expeditious conduct of elections, can be maintained before this Court.

10. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that electoral rolls have been prepared by the respondents strictly in accordance with the rules and even the reservation notifications for reserving and allocation of rotation have also been carried out strictly in accordance with the prevailing law. He would further submit that there is no inconsistency in the delimitation process adopted by the respondents and the issues raised by the petitioners do not point out any extraordinary circumstances so as to enable them to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in the similar circumstances, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24123/2026, Babu Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others decided on 09.10.2026, has decided the issues in hand and the said decision would also be applicable in the present batch of writ petitions.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record.

12. This Court finds that Rule 23 of the Rules of 1994 refers to the general directions of the State Election Commission and admittedly, election programme dated 03.10.2026 issued by the State Election Commission falls in the category of general directions of the State Election Commission. After issuance of election programme, the entire machinery is set in motion and elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions are commenced from the date of issuance of election programme.

13. Thus, the issue requires consideration in the backdrop of the constitutional scheme governing elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India places specific restrictions on judicial interference in electoral matters. Clause (a) thereof bars the questioning of the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. Clause (b) further provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided by or under a law made by the State Legislature. The underlying object of this constitutional mandate is to ensure that elections are conducted smoothly and in accordance with the prescribed schedule, without being interrupted or impeded by judicial proceedings at different stages of the electoral process.

14. The foundational principle in this regard was laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Others, (1952) 1 SCC 94, wherein it was held that the expression “election” comprehends the entire electoral process, commencing with the initial steps and culminating in the declaration of the result. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that challenges arising out of the electoral process should ordinarily be pursued through the special remedy prescribed by election law rather than by proceedings which interrupt the process at an intermediate stage. The same principle was applied in the context of panchayat elections in State of U.P. & Others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 305, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the constitutional restriction on interference in matters concerning delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats. The above judgment clearly laid down that challenges to delimitation should ordinarily be raised before commencement of the election process and that the election process should not be obstructed by such challenges after it has been set in motion.

15. The aforesaid principle was reiterated and applied specifically to Gram Panchayat elections in Boddula Krishnaiah & Another vs. State Election Commissioner, A.P. & Others, (1996) 3 SCC 416. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the constitutional prohibition contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, emphasised that once the election process has commenced, the High Court ought not to interfere in a manner that stalls the elections or requires the electoral process to be undertaken afresh. The aggrieved party must ordinarily pursue the remedy available under the applicable election law. The Hon’ble Apex Court also relied upon its earlier decision in State of U.P. & Others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Others, (supra), while dealing with issues concerning delimitation and allotment of seats in panchayat elections.

16. The scope of judicial interference during an ongoing election was further explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar & Others, (2000) 8 SCC 216. It has been held that judicial intervention which would interrupt, obstruct or protract the election proceedings must ordinarily be avoided and it was also observed that the appropriate remedy should generally be pursued after completion of the election. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarified that judicial intervention is not altogether excluded where the relief sought would facilitate the completion of the election rather than interrupt or delay it. Though the above judgment was rendered in the context of Article 329(b), yet the principles enunciated therein concerning the scope of judicial interference during an ongoing electoral process are relevant in understanding the constitutional restriction under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.

17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in The State of Goa & Another vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh & Another, (2021) 8 SCC 401, while considering the constitutional scheme governing municipal elections, reiterated the importance of judicial restraint during the notified election process, subject to recognised exceptions.

18. Recently, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Singh (supra) has held as under: “31. In the present case, the election programme was published on 03.10.2026. The challenge to the reservation of the post, therefore, arises after the electoral process has been set in motion. The relief sought, if granted, would require reconsideration of the reservation arrangement applicable to the ensuing election and would consequently affect the notified electoral process. 32. This Court has further considered the judgment of the Division Bench in Giriraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2026:RJ-JP:27775-DB), decided on 20.07.2026. In the said case, the Court considered the proposed schedules for elections to Urban Local Bodies and Rural Local Bodies and directed that the elections be concluded on or before 15.11.2026. The relevant direction reads as follows: “….xxxx 4. We have carefully gone through the Minutes of the Meeting which was headed by the Chief Secretary, Rajasthan and which included Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretary, OBC Commission for Political Reservation and Secretary, State Election Commission. A tentative schedule has also been placed before us with regard to the Urban Local Body Election Programme which is to be conducted within thirty five days. Another tentative schedule for election of Rural Local Bodies has also been placed which is to be conducted within 54 days. The tentative date of election for Urban Local Bodies has been placed before us as 17.08.2026 for declaration of election and for Panchayati Raj and Zila Parishad, the tentative date has been fixed as 23.09.2026, i.e., soon after the completion of the elections of the Urban Local Bodies which are tentatively scheduled to be closed on 20.09.2026. the Urban Local Body Election Programme which is to be conducted within thirty five days. Another tentative schedule for election of Rural Local Bodies has also been placed which is to be conducted within 54 days. The tentative date of election for Urban Local Bodies has been placed before us as 17.08.2026 for declaration of election and for Panchayati Raj and Zila Parishad, the tentative date has been fixed as 23.09.2026, i.e., soon after the completion of the elections of the Urban Local Bodies which are tentatively scheduled to be closed on 20.09.2026. 10. Let the elections be over and concluded on or beofe 15.11.2026. ….xxxx” 33. The aforesaid direction underscores the importance attached to the timely completion of local-body elections. In the present matter, the election programme has already been published, and the electoral process is underway. Any interference with the notified alloment of seat at this stage would have to be assessed in the light of the constitutional restriction and the need to ensure that the electoral process proceeds in accordance with the notified schedule. 34. The Court is conscious that the petitioners allege an error in the population ratio forming the basis of reservation, however, the correctness of the allotment of seat on merits and the maintainability of the challenge at the present stage are distinct questions. The existence of an arguable grievance does not, by itself, authorise the Court to disregard an express constitutional restriction. At the same time, the constitutional bar cannot be applied mechanically without examining whether the challenge falls within the subject matter covered by Article 243-O and whether the relief sought would amount to impermissible interference with the electoral process. 35. In the present case, the petitioners’ grievance in respect to the allotment of the seat for the ensuing Panchayat election, allegedly on the basis of an erroneous population ratio. The relief sought would directly affect the reservation arrangement governing the election. In view of the publication of the election programme on 03.10.2026, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot seek, through the present writ proceedings, an alteration of the notified electoral arrangement at this stage, subject to the constitutional scheme and the remedy provided by the applicable election law. 36. The Court has also considered the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, namely, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat & Ors., Kaushal Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The applicability of the aforesaid decisions must be assessed with reference to their factual context, the nature of the relief sought therein and the constitutional or statutory provisions considered. Insofar as the petitioners seeks to rely upon those decisions to contend that the present challenge must necessarily be entertained notwithstanding the publication of the election programme, the same cannot be accepted without establishing that the facts and the applicable legal principles materially correspond to those governing the present controversy. 37. The constitutional restriction under Article 243-O cannot be displaced merely by describing the impugned allotment of seat as erroneous, arbitrary or contrary to law. Equally, the Court is not required, while deciding the question of maintainability, to pronounce upon the correctness of the population figures or the legality of the reservation roster on merits. The relevant consideration at this stage is whether the nature of the challenge and the relief sought permit the Court to intervene during the subsistence of the notified electoral process. 38. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the election programme was published on 03.10.2026 and that the petitioners seek reconsideration of the allotment of seat for the ensuing Panchayat election. The relief sought would necessarily entail judicial examination and potential alteration of the reservation arrangement governing the election after commencement of the electoral process. Such interference, in the circumstances of the present case, would be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme embodied in Article 243-O and the principle that electoral disputes must ordinarily be raised through the remedy prescribed by election law. 39. It is clarified that the Court has not examined the correctness of the population ratio alleged by the petitioners to be erroneous, nor has expressed any opinion on the merits of the allotment of the seat. The question whether the reservation/allotment of seats has been determined in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and relevant population data is distinct from the question of whether such a challenge can be entertained by this Court after publication of the election programme. The present decision is confined to the latter question. 40. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petitions, insofar as it seeks judicial interference with the allotment of the seat for the ensuing Panchayat election after publication of the election programme dated 03.10.2026, is not maintainable at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ grievance concerning the alleged error in the population ratio or the correctness of the reservation arrangement, the present writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable at this stage in view of the constitutional scheme embodied in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.”

19. It has been informed to this Court that although judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Babu Singh (supra) has further been challenged before Division Bench of this Court by way of intra-court appeal, yet no stay has been granted to the appellants therein.

20. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present batch of cases, it is evident that the grievances raised by the petitioners pertain to matters integrally connected with the ongoing Panchayat election process, including reservation and rotation of seats, allotment of constituencies through lottery, preparation and correction of electoral rolls, delimitation and allied issues. The issuance of the election programme dated 03.10.2026 marks the commencement of the notified electoral process, and interference at this stage, where the relief sought would interrupt, obstruct or protract the elections, would be contrary to the constitutional scheme. The mere allegation of illegality, arbitrariness or procedural irregularity in an electoral decision does not, by itself, warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the applicable election law provides a mechanism for redressal of the grievance.

21. In the present cases, the petitioners have not established any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage. This Court, therefore, deems it proper to decline from entertaining the challenges during the subsistence of the ongoing election process.

22. Consequently, all the above writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are hereby dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail such statutory remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

23. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

24. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each writ petition.

(ANAND SHARMA),J