Headnotes
The petitioner's name was deleted from the electoral rolls for the municipal election without prior notice or hearing, which he challenged as arbitrary and violative of natural justice; the State argued the challenge was barred once the election program had been notified.
Full Judgment Text
FACTS:
The petitioner's name was deleted from the voter rolls prepared for the 2026 Nagar Palika General Election, allegedly without notice or an opportunity of hearing. He approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging the deletion as arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, seeking restoration of his name to the electoral roll.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once the State Election Commission issues the election programme for a municipal election, the election process is deemed to have commenced. At that point, the bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution — which prohibits courts from interfering in matters relating to elections to municipalities — comes into operation automatically.
The Court observed: "upon declaration of the election program ... the election process has been initiated. Hence, the bar contained under Article 243-ZG ... comes into operation automatically."
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court's settled position in N.P. Ponnuswami and Mohinder Singh Gill, which establish that courts cannot intervene in the electoral process once it has begun, leaving any grievance to be pursued through the statutory election-dispute mechanism instead.
HOLDING:
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the voter-list deletion once the municipal election process had been initiated.
Source: LiveLaw, "Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea Against Deletion From Voter List, Cites Bar Under Article 243ZG," September 13, 2026.
The petitioner's name was deleted from the voter rolls prepared for the 2026 Nagar Palika General Election, allegedly without notice or an opportunity of hearing. He approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging the deletion as arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, seeking restoration of his name to the electoral roll.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once the State Election Commission issues the election programme for a municipal election, the election process is deemed to have commenced. At that point, the bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution — which prohibits courts from interfering in matters relating to elections to municipalities — comes into operation automatically.
The Court observed: "upon declaration of the election program ... the election process has been initiated. Hence, the bar contained under Article 243-ZG ... comes into operation automatically."
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court's settled position in N.P. Ponnuswami and Mohinder Singh Gill, which establish that courts cannot intervene in the electoral process once it has begun, leaving any grievance to be pursued through the statutory election-dispute mechanism instead.
HOLDING:
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the voter-list deletion once the municipal election process had been initiated.
Source: LiveLaw, "Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea Against Deletion From Voter List, Cites Bar Under Article 243ZG," September 13, 2026.
Cases Cited & References
- 1. 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 382