Back
Dismisses Pleas Against Municipal Reservation Lottery, Cites Bar
The has thrown out multiple petitions challenging the re-lottery process for reservation of seats in upcoming municipal elections, ruling that the under prevents any once the has been declared.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over a , held that the declaration of the by the on , had initiated the election process, triggering the bar under of the . The court found that the pleas, which sought to quash the re-lottery and the revised reservation orders, could not be entertained at this stage.
The Reservation Lottery Dispute
The petitioners, including Harish Kumar, Ganpat Lal, and Bhagwan Singh Mertiya, argued that the lottery process for category-wise reservation of seats in municipalities in Jalore, Bilara, and Bikaner had been unfairly changed without notice. They contended that the reservation policy was not applied proportionally to the population, making the revised lottery arbitrary.
All three petitions raised a common grievance: that the initial reservation lists prepared under the were suddenly altered via a fresh lottery, and that this action violated the principles of fairness.
Arguments: Process vs. Programme
The central legal question was whether the court could interfere at all. The petitioners argued that the election process had not truly begun—only a had been issued, and no formal notification under had been made. They relied on the ’s decision in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2023), which, they claimed, allowed judicial intervention in cases of arbitrary state action.
The respondents—represented by the State of Rajasthan, the District Election Officers, and the State Election Commission—countered that the had been declared on , complete with dates for nominations, scrutiny, withdrawal, polling, and results (scheduled from ). This declaration, they argued, marked the commencement of the election process, bringing into effect. They cited the landmark Bench decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) to assert that courts cannot interfere mid-election.
Precedent Prevails: Larger Bench Binding
Justice Dhand carefully weighed the precedents. While the petitioners pointed to the Union Territory of Ladakh case, the court noted that judgment came from a two-Judge Bench, whereas N.P. Ponnuswami was a six-Judge Bench. Citing the ’s own ruling in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005), the court held that a larger Bench’s decision is binding on smaller Benches.
“The judgment rendered by a Bench in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra), being a judgment of a Bench of larger strength, would prevail and would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases,” Justice Dhand observed.
Key Observations
The court emphasized that the notification issued by the State Election Commission clearly indicated the initiation of the election process. Extracting from N.P. Ponnuswami , the judgment stated:
“Having regard to the important functions which the legislature have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over.”
The court further noted that stands as a robust bar, and any challenge to electoral matters must be raised only through an after the election is concluded—not during the process.
Final Dismissal
Consequently, all three were dismissed as not maintainable. The court also dismissed all pending and pleas.
The decision reaffirms the sacrosanct nature of the election timeline and the limited scope of once the electoral machinery is set in motion. For the municipalities of Rajasthan, the election schedule stands unchanged, and the reservation lottery remains in effect as notified.
