Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 12 November 2026
- Bench
- Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 226, 243-O; Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 — Rule 23
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, leaving intact the Single Judge's order of 4 November 2026 that quashed the deletion; the stay application and any other pending applications were disposed of (paras 11-12).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 12 November 2026
Key holdings
- The Article 243-O bar is attracted once the election process has commenced and applies to the Appellate Authority, even in the exercise of its statutory powers under the Rules of 1994 (para 10).
- Kanti Lal, recording the State's stand that the process began with the 3 October 2026 programme, was applied (paras 7-8).
- Names added on the voters' own application were deleted on the very day fixed for their appearance; the Court found that no proper hearing appeared to have been given (para 5).
- The Commission's appeal was dismissed and the Single Judge's order quashing the deletion was left intact (para 11).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
For Rajasthan's 2026 Panchayati Raj polls, the High Court has already held that the Article 243-O bar restrains writ courts once the 3 October 2026 programme issued (Balveer Singh; State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Singh). This order applies the same bar to the Appellate Authority under the Election Rules, so a deletion of voters' names made after that date could not stand (para 10). It reads with Pawan, where a Jodhpur Division Bench refused to order deletions from a roll after the election notice. The order does not decide where the four voters ordinarily reside.
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1237/2026 (Principal Seat, Jodhpur), decided on 15.10.2026
A Division Bench at Jodhpur, recording the State's stand that the Panchayat election process commenced with the State Election Commission's programme of 03.10.2026, declined to interfere with the election process and dismissed the stay application, noting the restraint required where elections are imminent and the bar in Article 243-O (paras 7-8). The Court relied on it in holding the bar attracted (para 10).
- Pawan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24025/2026 (Principal Seat, Jodhpur), decided on 27.10.2026
Relied on by the respondents (para 4). The Court quoted its holding that, after the notice of 13.10.2026 under Rule 58 of the Rules of 1994, no deletion or amendment could be made in the electoral roll (para 9), and relied on it in holding the bar attracted (para 10).
- Balveer Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21252/2026
Relied on by the Single Judge, with Mohinder Singh Gill, for the view that once the election process has commenced the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to interfere with the electoral roll (para 2). The Division Bench upheld that order (para 11) without discussing Balveer Singh in its findings.
View all precedents (4)
- Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405
Relied on by the Single Judge (para 2), and cited in the State's submissions recorded in Kanti Lal for the view that 'election' refers to the entire process of several stages (para 7).
