STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs MAHENDRA SINGH S/O SIRMOHAR

[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] Reportable
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
Judgment reserved on : 26/10/2026
Judgment delivered on : 2/ 11/2026
Judgment (full) uploaded on : 2/11/2026
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1227/2026
CNR: RJHC020983772026 | URN: SAW / 2441U / 2026
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, (Panchayati Raj) Government
Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. District Collector Cum District Election Officer, District
Karauli
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun District Karauli
----Appellants
Versus
Mahendra Singh S/o Sirmohar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward
No.7 Village Akbarpur, Gram Panchayat Akbarpur, Panchayat
Samiti Shreemahavirji, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli,
Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1228/2026
CNR: RJHC020983712026 | URN: SAW / 2442U / 2026
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, (Panchayati Raj) Government
Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. District Collector Cum District Election Officer, District
Karauli
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun District Karauli
----Appellants
Versus
Dheeraj Jatav S/o Haricharan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House
No. 211, Ward No. 7, Shree Mahavireeji, Tehsil Hindaun District
Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1230/2026
CNR: RJHC020984292026 | URN: SAW / 2444U / 2026
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(2 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. State Election Commission, Through Its Chief Electoral
Officer, Main Building Secretariat, Room No. 5213,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The District Electoral Officer (Panchayats), District
Bharatpur.
4. The Returning Officer, Panchayat Samiti Uchchain, District
Bharatpur
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Uchchain, District Bharatpur
6. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Uchchain, District Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Kumar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Village And Post Baridha, Uchchain, Bharatpur-321301 (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG with
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
Ms. Divya Rathore for
Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Major RP Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat
Mr. Naseemuddin Quazi
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed
DIVISION BENCH
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
C.A.V. Judgment
For sake of exposition, this judgment is divided in the
following parts:-
S. No. Particulars Page Nos.
1. PREFATORY NOTE 3
2. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE
LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING
3-7
FOR THE APPELLANTS
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(3 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
3. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE
LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING
7-11
FOR THE NON- APPELLANTS
4. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 11-19
PREFATORY NOTE :
1. In view of the intertwined nature of the controversy involved,
coupled with the identical factual matrix emerging in the present
matters, and with the consent of the learned counsel representing
the respective sides, owing to the congruence of issues and for the
sake of expedient adjudication, the instant petitions are decided
by this common adjudicatory judgment, the ratio decidendi
whereof shall operate mutatis mutandis upon all related pleadings.
For the purposes of factual clarity and narrative convenience, the
averments articulated DBSAW No. 1227/2026 are adopted by this
Court as the primary factual matrix for the disposal of the instant
lis.
2. The lead case is an appeal preferred assailing the impugned
order dated 01.10.2026 passed in SBCWP No. 20214/2026
whereby the writ petition of the respondents herein has been
allowed, and the reservation lottery dated 24.09.2026 qua Gram
Panchayat, Akbarpur, Panchayat Samiti Shri Mahaveerji have been
quashed and set aside.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL
APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANTS :
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of
the appellants–State authorities, submitted that the present
special appeal had been preferred assailing the order dated
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(4 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
01.10.2026 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20214/2026,
whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent–writ petitioner
had been allowed, the reservation lottery dated 24.09.2026
pertaining to Gram Panchayat Akbarpur, Panchayat Samiti Shri
Mahaveerji, District Karauli, had been quashed and set aside, and
the authorities had been directed to undertake a fresh exercise for
reservation of seats in the aforesaid Gram Panchayat strictly in
accordance with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election)
Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Election Rules”), and the
applicable administrative circulars.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the reservation exercise
undertaken by the appellant authorities in respect of Gram
Panchayat Akbarpur, Panchayat Samiti Shri Mahaveerji, District
Karauli, was strictly in consonance with Rule 7 of the Election
Rules, as well as the administrative circulars dated 10.08.2026,
16.08.2026 and 19.09.2026 issued by the competent authorities.
It was contended that vide the impugned order the relevant
statutory provisions, particularly Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994, and
the aforesaid administrative circulars, were misconstrued while
passing the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2026. It was further
submitted that the administrative circulars dated 10.08.2026,
16.08.2026 and 19.09.2026 had been issued with the object of
supplementing the existing statutory framework, since the
statutory rules did not provide for the contingency arising out of
the reconstitution and delimitation of Panchayat circles,
particularly with regard to the procedure to be followed for
reservation of seats in such circumstances. Learned counsel
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(5 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
contended that the administrative instructions were intended to
address the aforesaid procedural vacuum and to facilitate the
reservation exercise in accordance with the applicable legal
framework. Accordingly, it was urged that the impugned
judgment, having proceeded on an erroneous interpretation of the
relevant rules and administrative circulars, was ex facie illegal and
arbitrary and deserved to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order
fails to appreciate that the category which had been earmarked
for reservation in the last preceding election had not been
reserved again in Gram Panchayat Akbarpur, Panchayat Samiti
Shri Mahaveerji, District Karauli. It was, contended that the
appellant authorities had duly adhered to the statutory as well as
constitutional mandate of rotation of reserved seats, both in letter
and in spirit, while undertaking the reservation exercise for the
Panchayat elections of 2026. It was also contended that the
respondent–writ petitioner did not possess any fundamental right
to contest an election from a particular constituency or against a
particular reservation category. On this premise, learned counsel
submitted that no legal injury had been caused to the respondent
by the reservation exercise undertaken by the appellant
authorities and, consequently, the respondent lacked the requisite
locus standi to challenge the reservation criteria adopted by the
State authorities.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that while undertaking the
reservation exercise for the Panchayat elections of 2026 in respect
of Gram Panchayat Akbarpur, Panchayat Samiti Shri Mahaveerji,
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(6 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
the appellant State had merely continued with the old reservation
cycle. It was contended that the respondent had not challenged
the earlier reservation provisions or the reservation arrangements
made in the preceding elections. Therefore, the respondent could
not, at this stage, question the continuation of the existing
reservation cycle in the absence of any challenge to the earlier
provisions governing the reservation exercise. It was further
submitted that the methodology prescribed for reservation of the
office of Sarpanch in Panchayati Raj Institutions, particularly in
respect of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was based
upon the overall population of the respective Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes within the particular Panchayat Samiti and
not upon their population in an individual Gram Panchayat.
Learned counsel submitted that the reservation of seats for the
Other Backward Classes and women, on the other hand, was
undertaken by way of draw of lots, but only after the reservation
of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had first
been determined. It was, contended that the reservation exercise
had to be examined in the context of the distinct methodologies
applicable to the respective categories, and that the interpretation
adopted by the learned Single Judge did not properly account for
the aforesaid distinction.
7. Learned counsel further argued that the interpretation
adopted by the learned Single Judge, if allowed to operate, would
give rise to a situation of complete uncertainty in the reservation
of seats for Panchayati Raj Institutions. It was submitted that such
an interpretation would undermine the consistency and
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(7 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
predictability of the reservation process and would ultimately
result in defeating the constitutional spirit of rotation of reserved
seats, instead of advancing the same in its true letter and spirit.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the Panchayati Raj election
programme/schedule had been published on 03.10.2026,
whereupon the electoral process had formally commenced. It was
contended that, in view of the commencement of the election
process, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained
or continued proceedings having the effect of interrupting,
postponing or paralysing the ongoing electoral process. In this
regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon Article 243-O of the
Constitution of India and submitted that the constitutional
provision expressly bars judicial interference in Panchayat
elections except by way of an election petition presented in the
manner prescribed by law. It was urged that the proceedings
culminating in the impugned judgment were liable to be set aside,
particularly in view of the commencement of the electoral process
and the constitutional restriction upon interference with elections
through proceedings other than an election petition. In support of
the submissions made learned counsel had placed reliance upon
the ratio enunciated in Kanti Lal v. the State of Rajasthan and
1
ors.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL
APPEARING FOR THE NON-APPELLANTS :
8. Per contra , learned counsel for the non-appellant submitted
that the present appeal is devoid of merit, as the appellants have
1D.B. SAW No. 1237/2026
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(8 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
not disputed the material facts concerning the reservation history
of Gram Panchayat Barigha, its unchanged status since 1995,
continuation of the existing cycle in 2020, or creation of new Gram
Panchayats vide notification dated 20.11.2025. It was submitted
that the learned Single Judge had duly considered Article 243-D of
the Constitution, Section 16 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,
1994, Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules,
1994, and the relevant circulars dated 08.12.2014, 10.08.2026,
16.08.2026 and 19.09.2026. The relief granted was limited to
quashing the lottery insofar as it related to Gram Panchayat
Barigha and directing a fresh draw under Rule 7 within seven
days, without stalling the election process.
9. It was further submitted that Article 243-D(4) of the
Constitution and Rule 7(12) of the Election Rules mandate rotation
of reserved offices amongst different Panchayats. Since Gram
Panchayat Barigha had already been reserved for the Scheduled
Caste category in 1995 and 2015, its reservation again in 2026,
without demonstrating that the existing roster had been
exhausted, was contrary to the principle of rotation. The
appellants had failed to establish that the Scheduled Caste roster
for Panchayat Samiti had been exhausted after the 2015 and 2020
elections, which was a prerequisite for commencing a fresh cycle.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants' own
circulars mandated continuation of the existing cycle. Clause 4(ii)
of the circular dated 10.08.2026 stipulated that category-wise
allocation in Panchayat Samitis that were reorganised or remained
unchanged was to be made according to the existing cycle. The
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(9 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
subsequent order dated 16.08.2026 deleted the provision
permitting a new cycle, while the clarification dated 19.09.2026
expressly clarified that the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
roster was to be reckoned from 1994 and that a new roster could
commence only after exhaustion of the existing one. Accordingly,
Gram Panchayats already reserved were required to be excluded
in favour of those remaining to be reserved.
11. It was contended that Panchayat Samiti Uchchain had been
carved out of Rupbas in the year 2019, and even in the 2020
elections, the existing rotation had been continued. Since neither
Gram Panchayat Barigha nor Panchayat Samiti Uchchain had been
newly constituted in 2026, there was no justification for
commencing a fresh cycle. The appellants had instead selected the
six Gram Panchayats having the highest Scheduled Caste
population, placing Barigha, with a Scheduled Caste population of
31.60%, at the sixth position. Such a population-based exercise,
without first excluding Barigha from the roster, was contrary to
Rule 7(12) and Clause 4(ii) of the circular dated 10.08.2026.
12. It was also submitted that, in terms of the circular dated
08.12.2014, newly created institutions were required to be
included in the pool of institutions remaining to be reserved and
ranked according to their Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
population. Four Gram Panchayats, namely Kalyanpur, Daulatgarh,
Jaicholi and Behrawali, had been newly created in Panchayat
Samiti Uchchain vide notification dated 20.11.2025. These Gram
Panchayats were therefore required to be included in the
remaining pool, whereas Barigha, having already been reserved
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(10 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
twice, ought to have been excluded. The appellants had adopted a
similar method in Panchayat Samiti Rupbas and Panchayat Samiti
Bayana but had not addressed the notification dated 20.11.2025
in the present appeal.
13. With regard to the objection under Article 243-O of the
Constitution, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition did
not challenge any law relating to delimitation or allotment of seats
but questioned an executive lottery conducted contrary to the
statutory rules and circulars. It was further submitted that, when
the writ petition was decided on 01.10.2026, the election
programme had not been announced, as the State Election
Commission announced the same only on 03.10.2026. Even
thereafter, the election notification for Gram Panchayat Barigha
had not been issued, and polling was scheduled for 16.11.2026.
Consequently, the election process for Barigha had not
commenced, and the bar under Article 243-O(b) was not
attracted. In support of the said submission reliance was placed
upon the ratio encapsulated in Election Commission of India v.
2
Ashok Kumar , to submit that judicial intervention which
facilitates and furthers the election process, without interrupting,
obstructing or delaying it, is permissible. It was further submitted
that the principles laid down in the said judgment, as well as the
judgment Union Territory of Ladakh and Ors. V. Jammu
3
Kashmir National Conference, and anr. , supported corrective
intervention where the authorities had acted contrary to law. The
judgments relied upon by the appellants concerned interference
2(2000) 8 SCC 216
3(2024) 18 SCC 643
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(11 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
after commencement of the election process and did not establish
that an illegal reservation, challenged before commencement of
the election programme, must be allowed to stand.
14. Learned counsel submitted that no delay or disruption of the
election process would result from the impugned judgment, as
Gram Panchayat Barigha fell in the fourth phase of the elections,
with polling scheduled for 16.11.2026, and its election notification
had not yet been issued. It was further contended that the
appellants had neither sought time to file a reply before the writ
court nor disputed the material facts, and had placed no new
document or fact on record in appeal. The plea of denial of
opportunity was, therefore, an afterthought.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :
15. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, examined the relevant constitutional and
statutory provisions, and taken into consideration the nature of
the relief granted by the learned Single Judge, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the controversy in the present appeal
must be examined not only in the context of the legality of the
reservation exercise undertaken by the State authorities but also
in the light of the constitutional scheme governing elections to
Panchayati Raj Institutions and the limitations imposed upon
judicial interference once the electoral process has commenced. It
is undisputed that the delimitation exercise was challenged before
this Court and a detailed order was passed in the case of Sheela
4
Kumari v. the State of Rajasthan , and a timeline was fixed for
4D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7718/2025
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(12 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
holding the elections. The matter was carried to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, where the SLPs were dismissed, the State having
given an undertaking to conclude the elections by 15.04.2026.
Thereafter, the Division Bench in the ratio passed in Girraj Singh
5
Devendra v. the State of Rajasthan , on application of State,
extended the timeline to conclude the elections on or before
15.11.2026.
16. It is not in dispute that the State Election Commission
published the election programme on 03.10.2026, which continues
to remain in operation. The publication of the election programme
marks a material stage in the electoral process and requires the
authorities entrusted with the conduct of elections to proceed in
accordance with the notified schedule, subject to the constitutional
and statutory framework. The question, therefore, is whether the
corrective directions issued by the learned Single Judge, though
intended to address the grievance relating to reservation, could
lawfully be sustained in the face of the constitutional restraint
upon judicial interference in the ongoing election process.
17. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to Article 243-
O of the Constitution of India, which provides a constitutional
safeguard against judicial interference in electoral matters relating
to Panchayats. The provision reads as under:
“ 243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral
matters : Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution-
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation
of constituencies or the allotment of seals to such
constituencies made or purporting to be made under
article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
5D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1285/2025
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(13 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented to
such authority and in such manner as is provided for by
or under any Law made by the legislature of a State.”
18. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid clauses manifests the
constitutional intent to ensure that the electoral process is not
rendered vulnerable to repeated judicial challenges at its
intermediate stages. The constitutional scheme envisages that
electoral disputes be adjudicated through the mechanism
prescribed by the State Legislature, thereby ensuring the timely
completion of elections and the constitution of duly elected local
self-government institutions. The aforesaid constitutional mandate
has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sandeep
6
Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa , decided on 02.02.2026.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the limits of the High
Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters concerning
Panchayat elections, emphasised that the constitutional embargo
under Article 243-O must be respected and that an individual
grievance cannot be permitted to derail or obstruct the electoral
process where the governing State law provides an efficacious
remedy by way of an election petition. The Court underscored that
the right to contest an election and the remedies available in
relation thereto must be exercised in accordance with the
applicable statutory framework. The aforesaid pronouncement
assumes significance in the present matter, inasmuch as the
grievance raised by the respondent–writ petitioner pertains to the
reservation of a particular Gram Panchayat for a particular
category in the ensuing elections. The relief granted by the
62026 INSC 105
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(14 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
learned Single Judge, requiring the authorities to undertake a
fresh reservation exercise, would necessarily entail reconsideration
of the existing allocation and could have a consequential bearing
upon the notified electoral arrangements. Once the election
programme dated 03.10.2026 has been published and remains
operative, such intervention must be tested against the
constitutional requirement of uninterrupted progression of the
election process.
19. This Court is conscious of the fact that Article 243-O does
not obliterate the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution in every circumstance connected with an election.
Nevertheless, the exercise of such jurisdiction is subject to the
constitutional limitations governing electoral disputes and the
nature and effect of the relief sought. The mere assertion that an
administrative action is contrary to statutory rules or executive
instructions cannot, by itself, justify an order that has the effect of
reopening or altering an electoral arrangement after the election
programme has been notified, particularly when the applicable law
provides a prescribed mechanism for raising election-related
grievances. The State Election Commission has declared election
on 03.10.2026, for holding elections for 41 Zila Parishads having
1403 wards for 457 Panchayat Samitis having 8245 wards and
14403Village Panchayat having 1,30,589 wards with more than
four crore voters. The election in case of first phase is held from
25.10.2026, and the second phase will be over on 31.10.2026,
and from the next date the elections for the Upsarpanch would be
held. Further, elections of third phase would also be over on
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(15 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
07.11.2026 and fourth phase will be over on 17.11.2026; thus, in
such circuamstances where categorical byfurcation has been made
and the same is even brought in public domain, the scope of
judicial interference at such belated stage becomes more
minuscule. The distinction between permissible judicial scrutiny
and impermissible interference with an ongoing election was
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Election Commission
7
of India v. Ashok Kumar , Lakshmi Charan Sen V. A.K.M.
8
Hassan Uzzaman , N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer,
9
Namkkal Constituency and Ors. and Anuragh Narain Singh
10
V. State of U.P. . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that judicial
intervention may be permissible where it facilitates and furthers
the progress of an election without interrupting, obstructing or
delaying the proceedings. Conversely, judicial intervention which
impedes the electoral process or results in its postponement
cannot ordinarily be justified merely on the ground that a party
seeks correction of an alleged illegality. Applying the aforesaid
principle to the facts of the present case, the direction to conduct
a fresh lottery for reservation, after publication of the election
programme dated 03.10.2026, cannot be viewed in isolation from
its potential consequences upon the ongoing electoral exercise.
Such a direction necessitates a fresh administrative exercise
concerning the reservation of seats and may require consequential
alterations to arrangements already made pursuant to the notified
programme. The fact that the direction was confined to a
7(2000) 8 SCC 216
8(1985) 4 SCC 689
9(1952) 1 SCC 94
10(1996) 6 SCC 303
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(16 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
particular Gram Panchayat does not, by itself, remove the
possibility of interference with the ongoing election process.
20. The submission advanced on behalf of the non-appellants
that the impugned direction would not cause any delay, since the
election notification for the concerned Gram Panchayat had not yet
been issued and polling was scheduled for a subsequent phase,
has also been considered. However, the relevant consideration is
not confined to whether polling in the particular Gram Panchayat
has commenced or whether its individual election notification has
been issued. Once the State Election Commission has published
the election programme on 03.10.2026, and the same remains in
operation, the electoral process must be viewed as an integrated
exercise comprising successive stages. The absence of an
individual notification for a particular Gram Panchayat does not, by
itself, confer an unrestricted licence to reopen the reservation
exercise through judicial directions that may affect the notified
electoral arrangements. The principle underlying the constitutional
restriction is to prevent the electoral process from being
interrupted through proceedings at successive stages and to
ensure that disputes capable of being addressed through the
prescribed electoral remedy are not permitted to impede the
timely completion of elections.
21. The argument advanced by the non-appellants with regard to
the alleged non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, and the administrative
circulars dated 08.12.2014, 10.08.2026, 16.08.2026 and
19.09.2026, raises a distinct question concerning the legality of
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(17 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
the reservation exercise and the application of the principle of
rotation. The importance of reservation by rotation, as
contemplated under Article 243-D of the Constitution and the
applicable statutory rules, cannot be understated. However, the
existence of an arguable grievance on the merits does not
dispense with the requirement of examining whether the relief
granted by the writ court was appropriate in the prevailing
electoral circumstances. It is well settled that the constitutional
scheme seeks to harmonise judicial review with the imperative of
conducting elections in a timely and orderly manner.
Consequently, even where a grievance concerning the reservation
exercise is asserted to be substantial, the remedy must be
pursued in a manner consistent with the applicable constitutional
and statutory framework. The question of the legality of the
reservation exercise cannot be treated as automatically overriding
the constitutional restrictions applicable to election-related
proceedings.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has time and again while
examining disputes concerning local-body elections, delimitation
and reservation, recognised the importance of adhering to the
constitutional framework governing the conduct of elections and
the need to avoid disruptions to the electoral process. In the
present case, the learned Single Judge directed the authorities to
undertake a fresh reservation exercise in accordance with Rule 7
of the Rules of 1994 and the applicable administrative circulars.
Although the direction was intended to secure compliance with the
governing legal framework, its effect must be assessed in the light
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(18 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
of the subsequent and material development that the election
programme had been published on 03.10.2026 and continues to
remain operative. In these circumstances, permitting the
impugned direction to operate would risk reopening the
reservation arrangements during the subsistence of the notified
electoral programme and would not be consistent with the
principle of electoral continuity embodied in Article 243-O of the
Constitution.
23. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the
dispute concerning the legality of the reservation allocation ought
to be addressed in accordance with the remedy available under
the applicable law, subject to the precise nature of the grievance
and the statutory grounds available. The constitutional bar cannot
be circumvented merely by framing the challenge as one
concerning an administrative lottery when, in substance, the relief
sought would alter the reservation arrangement governing the
ensuing election. It is also noteworthy that the respondents have
flatly placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Union
Territory of Ladakh and Ors. (supra), however, the same is
not applicable to the matter at hand, as the same is on a
distinguishable pedestal, as the said ratio pertains to issue of
election symbol.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
learned Single Judge, while directing a fresh reservation exercise,
did not accord due weight to the constitutional limitations
governing judicial interference in electoral matters; nevertheless,
the impugned order has been passed on 01.10.2026 and the
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)

(19 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JP:44078-DB] [SAW-1227/2026]
election programme dated 03.10.2026 had been published
subsequent to it, however, as on date the same remains in
operation. The impugned judgment, to the extent that it directs a
fresh reservation exercise, now during the subsistence of the
notified electoral programme, cannot be sustained.
25. Accordingly, and in view of the subsequent development i.e.
passing of the order dated 03.10.2026, the special appeals are
allowed, in terms of the prayers made. The judgment and order
dated 01.10.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge will not
cause prejudice to the election process in question, as after
passing of the said order, subsequent developments have taken
place. The reservation lottery shall not be reopened pursuant to
the directions contained in the impugned judgment/order during
the subsistence of the election programme, in question.
26. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the
correctness of the reservation allocation on its substantive merits,
and the observations made herein are confined to the question of
judicial interference in view of the notified electoral programme.
No opinion is expressed on any issue that may arise for
consideration before the competent forum in proceedings
maintainable under the applicable law.
27. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.
28. A copy of the present order be separately placed in each
connected files.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ
Preeti Asopa
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:03:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:36:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)