One Proposer, Two Nominations: Rule 58(g) Ruling by Raj HC

Later Nomination Signed by Same Proposer Invalid Under Rule 58(g); Election Petition Is the Remedy: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 26 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition against the rejection of a nomination for Member, Panchayat Samiti, Maujmabad (paras 1, 18). One of the petitioner's proposers had also proposed another candidate, whose nomination was received first; Rule 58(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 invalidates every later nomination signed by the same proposer (paras 9-10). Her remedy is an election petition under Rule 80(c) after the result, as Article 243-O(b) barred interference once the elections were notified (paras 12, 17).

Key holdings

Where one voter proposes two candidates, Rule 58(g) keeps only the nomination the Returning Officer received first (para 9).

The petitioner's nomination, filed after the other candidate's, was rejected without any illegality (paras 9-10).

Rule 80(c) allows an election petition before the District Judge within thirty days of the result on the ground of improper rejection, so the petitioner was not remediless (paras 11-12).

Once the elections were notified on 3 October 2026, Article 243-O(b) barred interference and the writ petition was not maintainable (paras 13-17).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner filed her nomination for election as Member, Panchayat Samiti, Maujmabad, District Jaipur. It was rejected on 15 October 2026, with polling scheduled for 22 October 2026 (paras 1, 9). The stated reason was that one of her proposers was also the proposer of another candidate (paras 2, 9). She said the rejection was arbitrary, that the other candidate's nomination should also have been rejected, and that she had no remedy left; she sought a direction to accept her nomination (paras 1-2). The Additional Advocate General, appearing on an advance copy, relied on Article 243-O(b), Rule 58(g), the Rule 80 election petition and N.P. Ponnuswami (paras 3-7). No reply was filed for want of time (para 9).

Court's Findings

The Court noted that Rule 58(g) bars a voter from proposing more than one candidate and declares invalid all nominations signed by that voter other than the first received by the Returning Officer (para 9). The State informed it, without contradiction from the petitioner, that her nomination was filed after the other candidate's (para 9). Applying that mandate, the Court found no illegality in the rejection (para 10). It rejected her plea that she was remediless: Rule 80 lets any candidate challenge the election before the District Judge within thirty days of the result, and Rule 80(c) makes improper rejection of a nomination a ground (paras 11-12). The Rules and the constitutional provisions bar interference by courts during the election process (para 13). N.P. Ponnuswami, on the Article 329(b) bar and the absence of two remedies for one grievance, still holds the law (para 14). A Division Bench in Kanti Lal had refused interim relief under Article 243-O(b) (para 15), and a co-ordinate Bench in Kanhaiya Lal had refused to interfere in a Nagar Palika election (para 16). With the elections notified on 3 October 2026, the writ petition was not maintainable (para 17).

Legal Principle

Under Rule 58(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, a voter may propose only one candidate; nominations he signs other than the first received are invalid. Once panchayat elections are notified, Article 243-O(b) bars a writ against the rejection; the remedy is an election petition under Rule 80(c) (paras 9-12, 17).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Candidates for Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad seats should check, before filing, that none of their proposers has signed another candidate's nomination. Under Rule 58(g), only the nomination the Returning Officer received first stands; the petitioner's form came second, so its rejection was found lawful (paras 9-10). The order also closes the writ route mid-poll: Rule 80(c) allows an election petition before the District Judge within thirty days of the result on the ground of improper rejection (paras 11-12, 17). That matches Jagmohan, which held a writ against a Returning Officer's acceptance or rejection of a nomination not maintainable. Contrast the Supreme Court's Andhra Pradesh order, which allows directions furthering an election where timely material shows coercion at nominations.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer 1952(1) SCC 94
Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 14
Cited by the Additional Advocate General for the holding, under Article 329(b), that an election cannot be challenged both by a writ petition and by an election petition (para 4). The Court held that it still holds the law: Article 329(b) bars interference in elections once notified except by an election petition, and the law gives no two remedies for the same grievance (para 14).
Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1133
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Cited by the Additional Advocate General: considering Article 329(b) and N.P. Ponnuswami, the Supreme Court held that once elections are notified, the process and disputes between candidates can be questioned only by an election petition (para 5). The Court's own reasoning does not refer to it by name (paras 9-17).
Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others DB Special Appeal Writ No. 1237/2026, order dated 15.10.2026
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6, 15
Division Bench order refusing interim relief, after considering N.P. Ponnuswami, because of the bar under Article 243-O(b) where elections are imminent; the appeal remains pending (paras 6, 15). The Court quoted paras 8-9 of that order and relied on it in holding the writ petition not maintainable (paras 15, 17).

View all precedents (4)

Kanhaiya Lal v. State Election Commission, Rajasthan and others S.B. Civil Writ 18316/2026, dated 09.09.2026
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 7, 16
Co-ordinate Bench order refusing to interfere in a Nagar Palika election in view of Article 243-ZG and N.P. Ponnuswami, holding an election petition under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 to be the remedy (paras 7, 16). The Court relied on it as a decision in similar circumstances (paras 16-17).