Disputed electoral-roll deletions should be challenged through the statutory appellate remedy.

The 26 petitioners challenged the exclusion of their names from the electoral roll for Polling Station No. 211 under the 125 Patharkandi Legislative Assembly Constituency, Sribhumi District, although their names had appeared in the Final Electoral Roll dated 10 February 2026.

The respondents stated that, based on information obtained through the Booth Level Officer App, the petitioners were no longer ordinarily residing at their recorded addresses and had permanently shifted. Notices were allegedly issued, and upon the petitioners’ failure to appear, their names were deleted by orders dated 21 February 2026, collectively annexed to the respondents’ affidavit.

The petitioners disputed both the alleged change of residence and the issuance of notices, asserting that they continued to reside at the relevant addresses and possessed documents evidencing ordinary residence. They approached the High Court under Article 226, contending that the deletion violated the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Whether the petitioners’ names were lawfully deleted from the electoral roll on the ground that they were no longer ordinarily resident at the recorded addresses.

Whether the petitioners were afforded the notice and hearing required under Rule 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 before deletion of their names.

Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 24A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Rule 27 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 authorises alteration or deletion of an electoral entry on legally recognised grounds, including that the person is not ordinarily resident in the relevant constituency; an order under Section 22 is appealable under Section 24A to the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Executive Magistrate, District Collector, or an officer of equivalent rank.

Rule 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribes the notice-related procedure preceding deletion or correction of an electoral entry.

Rule 27 prescribes the manner and limitation for filing an appeal against an order under Section 22.

Where the dispute involves contested questions of fact, particularly ordinary residence and compliance with notice requirements, the statutory appellate authority is the appropriate forum for receiving evidence and deciding those questions.

The Court found that the pleadings disclosed disputed questions of fact regarding whether the petitioners continued to be ordinary residents of the locality and whether they had been evicted or had permanently shifted, as recorded in the deletion orders.

Since these factual questions could not appropriately be adjudicated in the writ proceedings, and because Section 24A expressly provided an appellate remedy against orders passed under Section 22, the Court considered it appropriate to permit the petitioners to place their supporting materials before the appellate authority.

The Court also took into account the petitioners’ assertion that they were unaware of the deletion orders and their bona fide prosecution of the writ petition. Accordingly, it relaxed the limitation objection while preserving the petitioners’ opportunity to challenge the deletion on merits.

The petitioners were granted liberty to file separate appeals before the District Magistrate/District Election Officer/District Collector/District Commissioner of Sribhumi under Section 24A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Rule 27 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

They were granted 20 days from 24 July 2026 to file the appeals, and the appellate authority was directed not to reject them on limitation grounds if filed within that period.

The appellate authority was further directed to decide the appeals preferably within 60 days of submission.

The Court clarified that the judgment would not prejudice the petitioners.