1. Challenge to deletion of name from voter list for municipal elections after election process had commenced. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 810
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Kuldeep Kumar, S/o. Bheru Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Election Commissioner Of Rajasthan, Jaipur – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17875 of 2026
Decided On : 03-09-2026
Important Points
Courts cannot interfere with the election process once the election program has been issued, as the bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India applies. Such grievances must be addressed through election petitions after the election concludes.
Subject
Election Law - Municipal Elections
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 243-ZG - Municipal Elections - Challenge to voter lists - Deletion of name from voter list without hearing - Bar on judicial interference once election process has been initiated - Once the election program has been issued by the election commission, there can be no interference by the Court in the election schedule (Paras 6 and 9) - Any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage before a special tribunal and not at an intermediate stage before any court, to ensure elections are concluded as per the time schedule (Paras 7 and 25).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed seeking to quash voter lists and restore the names of the petitioner and others, alleging that the petitioner's name was deleted from the voter list for general municipal elections without providing an opportunity of hearing, which was claimed to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. At the time of the petition, the election program had already been notified, and the process had commenced.
Findings of Court:
The court found that upon the declaration of the election program by the state election commission, the election process had been initiated. Consequently, the bar contained under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India operates automatically.
Issues: Whether the court can entertain a writ petition challenging the deletion of a name from a voter list after the election process has already been initiated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in light of settled legal propositions, once the election process has started, the courts should not interfere with the schedule. Any irregularities that could vitiate an election should be challenged through an election petition after the process is complete, rather than by seeking judicial intervention during the polling process.
Result: Writ petition rejected.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed seeking to quash voter lists and restore the names of the petitioner and others, alleging that the petitioner's name was deleted from the voter list for general municipal elections without providing an opportunity of hearing, which was claimed to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. At the time of the petition, the election program had already been notified, and the process had commenced.
Findings of Court:
The court found that upon the declaration of the election program by the state election commission, the election process had been initiated. Consequently, the bar contained under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India operates automatically.
Issues: Whether the court can entertain a writ petition challenging the deletion of a name from a voter list after the election process has already been initiated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in light of settled legal propositions, once the election process has started, the courts should not interfere with the schedule. Any irregularities that could vitiate an election should be challenged through an election petition after the process is complete, rather than by seeking judicial intervention during the polling process.
Result: Writ petition rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Mahesh Sharma with Ms. Harshita Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh Udawat
For the Petitioner: Dr. Mahesh Sharma with Ms. Harshita Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh Udawat
Table of Contents
2. Deletion without hearing violated principles of natural justice; name was present in prior list. (Para 3 )
3. Election process initiated upon issuance of election program; bar under Article 243-ZG applies. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 )
4. Courts cannot interfere in election matters once the election process has been initiated. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Writ petition rejected due to bar on interference after election process commenced. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can a court interfere in election matters after the election process has been initiated?
No, once the election process is initiated upon issuance of the election program, courts are barred from interfering. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. What is the effect of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution on election challenges?
Article 243-ZG bars court interference in election matters once the election process has been initiated. (Para 6 , 9 )
8. Should disputes regarding voter lists be raised during or after elections?
Such disputes should be raised after elections are completed, not during the ongoing election process. (Para 7 , 8 )
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“(i) to quash and set aside the voter lists dated 28.08.2026 (Annexure-3) and 31.08.2026 (Annexure-6) and revised voter list may be issued including the name of the petitioner and persons mentioned in Schedule-A;
(ii) Any other relief as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned voter lists dated 28.08.2026 and 31.08.2026 whereby the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the voter list for the Nagar Palika General Elections, 2026.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to publication of the aforesaid impugned voter lists, name of the petitioner was very much present in the earlier voter list. Now, without any basis and without providing any opportunity of hearing, his name has been deleted from the voter list in contravention of the provisions contained under the applicable rules. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents is contrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed, and a direction is required to be issued to the authorities concerned to provide due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his name be allowed to be re-entered in the voter list for the Nagar Palika General Elections, 2026.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.
5. The matter pertains to casting of vote in the forthcoming Municipal Elections for which a detailed election program has already been issued by the Rajasthan State Election Commission, wherein dates for conducting municipal elections in the State of Rajasthan have been declared. The election schedule has been notified as per the program. The last date for filing the nomination was 31st July, 2026 and the entire election process would schedule to commence from 27.08.2026 and be completed by 29.09.2026.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors. , reported in (1952) 1 SCC 94; and Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, has held that once the election process has been initiated, upon issuance of the election program by the Election Commission, there can be no interference by the Court in the election schedule.
7. The six Judges Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnusamy (supra) has dealt with identical situation in para number 15, 20, 24 & 25, which reads as under:
"15. The question now arises whether the law of elections in this country contemplates that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, which, as I shall point out latter, seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any court. It seems to me that under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question. Article 329(b) was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question could be urged. I
