Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the restoration of two names in the voter list ahead of the panchayat elections in Rajasthan. The petition was filed by Manoj Kumar Godara and his wife, Kiran Chaudhary, challenging orders that removed their names from the electoral roll of Ward No. 2 of Motinagar Gram Panchayat in Balotra district.
Justice Nupur Bhati declined to grant relief, observing that once the election schedule has been announced, an order directing the addition of names to the voter list could affect the ongoing election process.
The Court examined Article 243-O of the Constitution and the limits of judicial intervention in local body elections. It emphasised that courts must consider the stage of the election and the potential consequences of the relief sought before issuing directions that could disrupt the scheduled process.
The High Court clarified that its decision did not determine the merits of the couple’s claim of ordinary residence or conclusively establish the correctness of the inquiry report relied upon by the election authorities.
Dispute Over Voter List in Motinagar Gram Panchayat
The case concerned Ward No. 2 of Motinagar Gram Panchayat in Balotra district. The names of Manoj Kumar Godara and Kiran Chaudhary appeared at serial numbers 130 and 131 in the preliminary panchayat voter list issued on January 29, 2026.
An objection was subsequently raised regarding their ordinary residence. On February 20, 2026, the Electoral Registration Officer ordered the deletion of their names from the voter list.
The couple challenged the decision before the Balotra District Collector. On May 18, 2026, the Collector set aside the deletion order and remitted the matter to the Electoral Registration Officer for fresh consideration after hearing both sides and examining the relevant documents and inquiry material.
Names Removed Again After Fresh Inquiry
During reconsideration, both sides submitted their documents and responses. On October 7, directions were issued for a fresh local inquiry.
The inquiry report dated October 8 recorded that the petitioners’ residential dhani was not found at Khasra No. 151. It referred to their residence in connection with Khasra No. 150/103 in revenue village Sindhri Chausira.
Relying on the report, the Electoral Registration Officer rejected the couple’s claim on October 9. The District Collector subsequently dismissed their appeal on October 15.
The couple approached the High Court on October 17, challenging both orders and seeking the restoration of their names in the voter list.
Petitioners Challenge Inquiry and Opportunity of Hearing
The petitioners argued that the inquiry conducted on October 8 had taken place in their absence and that they had not received an adequate opportunity to respond to the findings recorded in the report.
They submitted that the concerned Patwari had suggested an inquiry by a committee, considering the sensitivity of the dispute, but their request had not been properly considered.
The couple also questioned the locations and survey numbers mentioned in the inquiry report. They contended that the authorities had not properly assessed the photographs and location-related documents submitted by them.
Their counsel further argued that the applicable law required a person to be an ordinary resident, not a permanent resident, of the relevant ward. According to the petitioners, the authorities had applied an incorrect legal test by relying on permanent residence.
They also maintained that the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because they had approached the Court before the election notification was issued.
State Opposes Relief Citing Election Schedule
The state government and election authorities opposed the petition, arguing that the panchayat election schedule had already been announced on October 3, 2026.
They submitted that restoring the petitioners’ names would require changes to the voter list and could affect subsequent stages of the election process.
The state also relied on Article 243-O of the Constitution, contending that judicial intervention in election-related matters must be exercised cautiously to avoid disrupting the electoral process.
The authorities further argued that purchasing land in a particular ward does not, by itself, establish that a person ordinarily resides there.
Court Distinguishes Earlier Ruling in Sampat Singh Case
During the hearing, the High Court considered its earlier decision in Sampat Singh v. Election Commission, Rajasthan.
In that case, the Court had intervened because the affected persons had not been given notice before their names were removed from the voter list and had not received an adequate opportunity to present their case.
However, the High Court found that the facts in the present matter were different. According to the record, Manoj Kumar Godara and Kiran Chaudhary had been issued notices on August 17, 2026, and had been given an opportunity to present their case before the competent authority.
The Court, therefore, held that the earlier ruling could not be applied to the present dispute in the same manner.
Article 243-O and Limits on Judicial Intervention
The High Court referred to Supreme Court decisions, including N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, which explain the importance of avoiding judicial interference that could interrupt an election once the electoral process has commenced.
The Court also considered recent Rajasthan High Court decisions concerning relief sought after the announcement of an election schedule.
It observed that an election is a multi-stage process and is not limited to the actual polling. An order requiring changes to the voter list after the schedule has been announced could have consequences for the remaining stages and the prescribed timelines.
The Court clarified that the announcement of an election schedule does not automatically eliminate the High Court’s jurisdiction in every case. However, before granting relief, the Court must consider the nature of the dispute, the stage of the election and the likely impact of its directions.
In the present case, restoring the petitioners’ names would have required changes to the electoral roll. Considering the announced schedule and the possibility of affecting the election process, the Court declined to issue such a direction.
Petition Dismissed Without Final Finding on Residence Claim
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed by Manoj Kumar Godara and Kiran Chaudhary.
The Court made it clear that the dismissal was not based on a final determination of whether the petitioners were ordinary residents of the ward or whether the inquiry report was factually correct.
Instead, the decision rested on the potential impact of the requested relief on the election process after the schedule had been announced.
The Court, therefore, declined to order the restoration of their names in the voter list without expressing a final opinion on the merits of their residence claim.
Appearances: Advocate Mrigraj Singh Rathore, assisted by advocate Kunal Upadhyay, appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Monal Chug appeared through video conferencing for the state government on behalf of Additional Advocate General Rajesh Panwar. Advocate Ravindra Jhala also appeared on behalf of Additional Advocate General S.S. Ladrecha.