1. Challenge to re-lottery for reservation of seats in municipal elections — Alleged arbitrary action without notice. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 857
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Harish Kumar S/o Deva Ram Neharu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20557, 20725, 20576 of 2026
Decided on : 21-08-2026
Important Points
Once the election process is initiated by declaration of the election programme by the State Election Commission, courts are barred from interfering under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Election Law
Act Referred
ELECTION RULES : R.10
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.243(zg)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.243(zg)
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 243-ZG and 226 - Rajasthan Municipalities Election Rules, Rule 10 - Bar on interference by courts in election matters - Election process commences from declaration of election programme by State Election Commission - Once election process initiated, courts cannot interfere under Article 226 due to bar under Article 243-ZG. (Paras 12, 13, 16)
(B) Precedent - Binding nature - Larger Bench decision prevails over smaller Bench - Constitution Bench decision in N.P. Ponnuswami (6-Judge) binding over two-Judge Bench in Union Territory of Ladakh. (Paras 17, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the lottery process for reservation of seats in Rajasthan Municipal Elections, specifically the re-draw of lots and change in reservation policy without notice. The respondents raised preliminary objection that after declaration of election programme by the State Election Commission, the court cannot interfere under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the election process had not commenced as no notification was issued, only a Model Code of Conduct.
Findings of Court:
The court held that once the election programme is declared by the State Election Commission, the election process is initiated and the bar under Article 243-ZG applies. The court cannot interfere at an intermediate stage. The Constitution Bench decision in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) being a larger Bench (six-Judge) is binding over the two-Judge Bench decision in Union Territory of Ladakh (supra).
Issues: Whether the court can interfere with the election process after declaration of election programme by the State Election Commission, in light of Article 243-ZG and the bar against judicial interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the election process is initiated by declaration of the election programme, the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG comes into operation and courts cannot interfere with the election schedule or process. Any challenge to election matters must be raised by way of election petition after the election is concluded.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
(B) Precedent - Binding nature - Larger Bench decision prevails over smaller Bench - Constitution Bench decision in N.P. Ponnuswami (6-Judge) binding over two-Judge Bench in Union Territory of Ladakh. (Paras 17, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the lottery process for reservation of seats in Rajasthan Municipal Elections, specifically the re-draw of lots and change in reservation policy without notice. The respondents raised preliminary objection that after declaration of election programme by the State Election Commission, the court cannot interfere under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the election process had not commenced as no notification was issued, only a Model Code of Conduct.
Findings of Court:
The court held that once the election programme is declared by the State Election Commission, the election process is initiated and the bar under Article 243-ZG applies. The court cannot interfere at an intermediate stage. The Constitution Bench decision in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) being a larger Bench (six-Judge) is binding over the two-Judge Bench decision in Union Territory of Ladakh (supra).
Issues: Whether the court can interfere with the election process after declaration of election programme by the State Election Commission, in light of Article 243-ZG and the bar against judicial interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the election process is initiated by declaration of the election programme, the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG comes into operation and courts cannot interfere with the election schedule or process. Any challenge to election matters must be raised by way of election petition after the election is concluded.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Moti Singh Mr. Shyam Sunder Pareek Mr. V.R. Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv.-cum-AAG assisted by Mr. Monal Chugh
For the Appellant : Mr. Moti Singh Mr. Shyam Sunder Pareek Mr. V.R. Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv.-cum-AAG assisted by Mr. Monal Chugh
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued election process not commenced; respondents argued declaration of programme initiates process, barring court interference under Article 243-ZG. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Writ petitions dismissed — Court declined interference due to bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. When does the election process commence for the purpose of the bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution?
Upon declaration of the election programme by the State Election Commission, the election process is initiated, triggering the bar under Article 243-ZG. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 )
5. Does Article 243-ZG bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with election matters after the election process has commenced?
Yes, the bar ousts the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with election matters once the election process has commenced, as per the Constitution Bench decision. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. What is the binding precedential value of a Constitution Bench decision over a smaller Bench decision?
A decision of a larger Bench is binding on a smaller Bench; the smaller Bench cannot doubt its correctness and must follow it. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Since a common question of law and facts is involved in all these writ petitions, which pertain to the lottery process initiated by the respondents for the purpose of reservation of seats in the forthcoming Rajasthan Municipal Elections, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments in both the writ petitions were heard together and the same are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts relating to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20557/2026 are being taken into consideration, which has been preferred with the following prayer:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed :
a) That by an Order, Writ or Direction may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned Letter dated 17.08.2026 and relevant part of the draw of re-lottery (Annexure-9) Colly. Issued by the District Election Officer cum District Collector, Jalore. b) That by an Order, Writ or Direction may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned Letter dated 17.08.2026 (Annexure-10) as issued by the District Election Officer cum District Collector, Jalore.
c) Any other Order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, as per the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Rules, a list was prepared and lotteries were drawn for the purpose of category-wise reservation of seats in the municipalities. Learned counsel submits that, all of a sudden, without any notice to the petitioners, a fresh exercise was undertaken and the earlier order was changed.
3. It is further submitted that now the reservation policy has not been applied in proportion to the population, as per the census of the concerned area. Hence, there is no justification for such unequal distribution of reservation amongst the municipalities. Learned counsel submits that, till date, the election process has not been initiated and only a Model Code of Conduct has been issued by way of a press note. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court can interfer with the impugned arbitrary action of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel submits that unless and until a notification is issued by the State Election Commission, it cannot be presumed that the election process has commenced so as to bar the judicial interference. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is contended that this Court would be justified in exercising its jurisdiction and interfering with the impugned action of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in terms of Rule 10 of the relevant Election Rules, the election process commences from the date of issuance of the notification and not from the date of declaration of the election programme.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State opposes the prayer and taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition, in terms of the mandate contained under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India. He submits that after initiation of the election process, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the election process.
7. Learned counsel submits that the Rajasthan State Election Commission, Rajasthan, has already declared the election programme vide order dated 19.08.2026 for conducting municipal elections in 309 different municipalities of the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that the declaration of the date of result by the State Election Commission amounts to initiation of the election process and, in terms of the bar contained under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, interference by this Court in the election process is not warranted.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakk
