Rule 21A Bars Panchayat Roll Deletion After Notice: Raj HC

Rule 21A Bars Deleting Names From Panchayat Electoral Roll After Election Notice: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses PIL

Published: 29 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a public-interest writ petition seeking deletion of certain persons' names from the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat Circle, Sant Nagar, Panchayat Samiti Luni (paras 2, 7). Although an inquiry report placed those persons at Mangal Nagar, the Court held that after the notification of 13 October 2026 under Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, no deletion or amendment could be made in the roll, in view of Rule 21A (paras 6-7).

Key holdings

A public-interest writ seeking deletion of names from a Gram Panchayat electoral roll was dismissed, as the Rule 58 notification of 13 October 2026 had already issued (paras 2, 6-7).

An inquiry report placing the persons at Mangal Nagar did not change the result, given the bar on deleting or amending entries after that notification (para 6).

Rule 21A was the only ground of decision; the alleged forgery and the correctness of the entries were left undecided (paras 6-7).

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 the writ petition in the public interest, seeking deletion of certain persons' names from the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat Circle, Sant Nagar, Panchayat Samiti Luni; he said they had been wrongly added on the basis of a forged rent agreement (para 2). Citing the Inquiry Officer's report that they ordinarily reside at Mangal Nagar, he said Rule 21A does not stop courts from acting where an irregularity or illegality is shown (para 3). The State replied that the names were recorded on the persons' own applications, and that after the public notice of 13 October 2026 under Rule 58 for the Panch and Sarpanch elections, Rule 21A barred amending, transposing or deleting entries (para 4).

Court's Findings

The Court considered both sides' cases and the record (para 5). It described the controversy as the addition of the names of the persons listed in the petition to the Sant Nagar roll although, on the petitioner's case, they are not ordinarily resident there (para 6). It recorded that, as per the report, those persons ordinarily reside at Mangal Nagar (para 6). Even so, it held that in view of the notification issued on 13 October 2026 under Rule 58, no deletion or amendment can be made in the electoral roll issued by the respondents (para 6). In view of Rule 21A, the Court found no force in the writ petition (para 7). The order rests on that bar alone. It makes no finding on whether the rent agreement was forged or whether the entries were wrongly made, does not decide the State's point that the names were entered on the persons' own applications, and does not discuss the Supreme Court decision cited for the petitioner (paras 3-7).

Legal Principle

Under Rule 21A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, once the notification for a panchayat election has issued under Rule 58, names cannot be deleted from, and no amendment can be made in, the electoral roll, even where an inquiry report places the persons elsewhere (paras 4, 6-7).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For voters who suspect wrong entries in a panchayat electoral roll, timing decides the outcome. Although an inquiry report placed the persons at Mangal Nagar, the Division Bench refused their deletion from the Sant Nagar roll because the Rule 58 notification of 13 October 2026 had already issued and, under Rule 21A, no deletion or amendment could follow it (paras 6-7). Objections to a roll therefore need to be pressed before the election notice. The order makes no finding on the alleged forged rent agreement (paras 2, 6-7). Compare Balveer Singh, where the Jaipur Bench held that once the election programme issues, Article 243-O rules out writs that would interrupt the poll over reservation, rotation, electoral rolls or delimitation.

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

Precedents Relied Upon

Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & Anr. 2023 INSC 804
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3
Cited for the petitioner for the submission that Rule 21A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 does not bar the courts from passing orders where an irregularity or illegality is pointed out (para 3). The Court's reasoning does not refer to it (paras 5-7).