JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge an endorsement dated 4.4.2026 by which the Electoral Officer has refused to include his name in the electoral roll.

2. These facts are not in dispute:-

(1) The petitioner's name was included in the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency in the year 2021. However, since he had shifted his residence, his name came to be deleted during the course of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls of the Legislative Assembly.

(2) The petitioner made an application to include his name on 8.2.2026.

(3) On 17.2.2026, the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls of the Legislative Assembly, published an electoral roll in which the name of the petitioner was not found. This was obviously because the petitioner was not available when the enumerating officer visited his residence and he had already shifted his residence.

(4) On 3.3.2026, the application filed by the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll in the Legislative Assembly was accepted by the Electoral Registration Officer under the authority empowered under the RP Act, 1950.

(5) Thus, as on 3.3.2026, the name of the petitioner was ordered to be included in the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency.

(6) It is pertinent to state here that though this application has been accepted, the final electoral list is yet to be published and is stated to be published on 10.4.2026.

(7) On 23.3.2026, as required under Rule 4 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Registration of Electoral Votes) Rules, 1994 (“the Rules, 1994” for short), the basis for preparation of this preliminary list was the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency.

(8) As noticed above, though the application of the petitioner to include his name had been accepted, as a matter of fact, his name was not found in the list of voters which was published by the Election Commission of India on 17.2.2026.

(9) Consequently, the authority under the Rules, 1994 did not include the name of the petitioner nor could they have included the name of the petitioner since Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 clearly stated that the basis for the electoral roll would be the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency.

(10) The petitioner, thereafter, pursued the officer under the Rules, 1994 to incorporate his name since his request to be included in the Assembly Constituency electoral roll had been accepted by the concerned officer on 3.3.2026.

(11) However, the authority under the Rules, 1994 has refused to incorporate his name by placing reliance on sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1994. As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the endorsement.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so long as the name of the petitioner has been ordered to be included in the Assembly Constituency prior to the period of 10 days contemplated under Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 1994, he has an indefeasible right to be a part of the election process and he would have a right to be in the electoral roll and cast his vote and even to participate in the election. He submits that the mere delay in the publication of the revised list, which is scheduled to be published on 10.4.2026, cannot be the reason for including his name. The learned counsel points out that in the given facts of the case, when the petitioner’s name has been included in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency, his name should be permitted to be included in the electoral roll published under the Rules, 1994 and enable the petitioner to participate in the election process.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 1994 specifically bars the officer from making any addition or alteration or modification in the final list of the electorates before 10 days of the l