Rajasthan High Court Lifts Stay on Dental Council Elections, Reaffirms Principle of Limited Judicial Intervention Post-Commencement

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent special appeal, set aside an ex-parte interim order that had stayed the ongoing election process for the Rajasthan State Dental Council. The Division Bench hearing the appeal emphasized the well-settled legal principle that courts should generally refrain from interfering once an election process has commenced, save for extraordinary circumstances.

The special appeal was filed by one of the respondents (Respondent No. 3 in the original writ petition) challenging the interim order dated 01.10.2024 passed by a Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16194/2024. The Single Judge's order had effectively halted the election process initiated by a notification dated 04.09.2024.

The elections were being held to fill four seats each for Part-A and Part-B members of the Rajasthan State Dental Council. The election schedule included key dates such as the last date for nominations (19.09.2024), scrutiny of nominations (20.09.2024), dispatch of voting papers (30.09.2024), last date for receiving ballot papers (21.10.2024), and counting of votes (22.10.2024).

The Core Dispute: Rejected Nomination

The writ petitioner's grievance stemmed from the rejection of his nomination papers for a Group-A Member seat. The nomination, sent by post, was rejected during scrutiny on 20.09.2024 by the Returning Officer. The reason cited for rejection was a discrepancy in the signature of the second proposer on the nomination form compared to their signature available with the Dental Council (on the membership application).

The appellant's Senior Counsel argued that the Returning Officer acted correctly under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan State Dental Council Rules, 2008. They submitted that during scrutiny, the Returning Officer even called the second proposer, obtained their signature, which matched the membership application but not the signature on the nomination form. This mismatch, they contended, justified the rejection.

Furthermore, the appellant argued that the Single Judge's order was influenced by submissions made by the writ petitioner's counsel that were not supported by the pleadings. Crucially, they asserted that interfering with an ongoing election process, especially one at an advanced stage, was contrary to established Supreme Court precedents. An alternative remedy, challenging election disputes before the State Government under Section 26 of the Dentists Act, 1948 read with Rule 23 of the 2008 Rules, was also available but not utilized.

Writ Petitioner's Counter-Arguments

The counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the rejection was an arbitrary exercise of power. They argued that it was not disputed that the second proposer was a valid elector or that the signature was forged. Arbitrary action, they submitted, provides sufficient grounds for the High Court to interfere, as non-interference is merely a caution, not an absolute bar, especially when such action deprives a candidate the chance to contest.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Division Bench considered the rival contentions and reviewed the relevant rules, specifically Rules 9, 10, and 12 of the 2008 Rules. Rule 9 mandates nomination papers be signed by a proposer and seconder and can be sent by post. Rule 12 grants the Returning Officer the power to scrutinize nominations and make a final decision on their validity.

The Court acknowledged the undisputed facts: the nomination was sent by post, the signature mismatch of the second proposer was found, and the Returning Officer, during scrutiny, confirmed the mismatch by obtaining a fresh signature from the second proposer which did not match the one on the nomination form.

The Court noted that if the nomination had been physically presented with the candidate, proposer, and seconder present, a signature mismatch might be less significant. However, with a postal nomination, the authenticity of the signature on the form itself becomes critical. The subsequent confirmation of the person's identity or a fresh signature doesn't necessarily validate a potentially forged or incorrect signature on the original nomination paper.

Based on this, the Court formed a prima facie view that the petitioner lacked a strong case justifying an interim stay.

Judicial Precedent on Election Interference

The Bench then delved into the settled legal position regarding judicial interference in election processes after their commencement. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Shaji K. Josheph Vs. V.Viswanath & Ors. , the Court reiterated the principle that courts normally should not interfere once the election programme is published. This is to prevent elections from being perpetually delayed or stalled by litigation. The Supreme Court in Shaji K. Josheph specifically highlighted the availability of alternative statutory remedies post-election.

The Court also considered the judgment in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and & Ors. , cited by the writ petitioner. This judgment carved out an exception, stating that constitutional courts are duty-bound to step in where there is "unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field... with no justifiable or intelligible basis." This decision suggested that self-imposed restrictions on interference might need a more liberal interpretation in such cases.

Harmonizing these principles, the Division Bench concluded that the "normal rule is minimal interference by the Court once election process is commenced," but interference is permissible in "extraordinary circumstance... [or] if the extraordinary circumstance is made out and action of the respondent is found to be so arbitrary or unjust executive action".

However, the Court declined to determine at the interim stage whether the present case fell under the category of "extraordinary circumstances," stating that this issue should be fully argued and decided in the main writ petition.

Conclusion

Finding the interim stay unwarranted on a prima facie assessment and considering the strong legal precedent against interfering with commenced elections, the Division Bench allowed the special appeal. The ex-parte interim order dated 01.10.2024 staying the election process was set aside.

The Court directed the parties to present all their factual and legal arguments before the learned Single Judge in the main writ petition. The judgment noted a previous interim order passed in the special appeal proceedings (dated 21.03.2024, likely a typo for a date closer to the appeal hearing) which allowed counting of votes to proceed but mandated that the election result should not be declared without the Court's permission. This condition on result declaration appears to remain in effect, pending the outcome of the main writ petition.

The decision allows the Rajasthan State Dental Council election process to move forward, lifting the previous stay imposed by the Single Judge.