Ordered inclusion in Assembly electoral roll overrides procedural bars against modifying municipal voter lists.

The petitioner’s name was deleted from the Legislative Assembly electoral roll following a residence shift.

On 08.02.2026, he applied for re-inclusion.

While the Chief Electoral Officer published a roll on 17.02.2026 excluding the petitioner, his specific application for inclusion was accepted by the Electoral Registration Officer under the RP Act, 1950, on 03.03.2026.

On 23.03.2026, the State Election Commission published a preliminary municipal electoral roll based on the 17.02.2026 Assembly list, thereby excluding the petitioner.

The Electoral Officer, via an endorsement dated 04.04.2026, refused to incorporate the petitioner’s name into the municipal roll, citing the 10-day prohibitory period for modifications prior to nominations under Rule 6(4) of the 1994 Rules.

1. Whether an order for inclusion in the Assembly electoral roll passed on 03.03.2026 entitles the petitioner to inclusion in the municipal electoral roll, notwithstanding that the final publication of the revised Assembly roll was scheduled for 10.04.2026.

2. Whether the technical bar under Rule 6(4) of the 1994 Rules can override a citizen's right to participate in the election when the substantive order for inclusion was made prior to the statutory cut-off period.

Rule 4 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Registration of Electoral Votes) Rules, 1994, which mandates that the Legislative Assembly roll serves as the basis for the municipal electoral roll.

Rule 6(4) of the 1994 Rules, which prohibits additions or modifications to the final electoral list within 10 days of the last date for filing nominations.

The authority of the Electoral Registration Officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner’s application for inclusion was accepted by a formal order on 03.03.2026, his name was legally part of the Assembly electoral roll before the publication of the municipal preliminary list on 23.03.2026.

The Court held that the reliance on the 17.02.2026 list by the authorities was technically correct but substantively incomplete, as the subsequent order of 03.03.2026 should have been reflected.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument regarding Rule 6(4), noting that a citizen’s right to participate in the electoral process—a cornerstone of local self-government—cannot be denied based on a technicality or the mere delay in the formal publication of a list (scheduled for 10.04.2026) when the underlying right was already adjudicated in the petitioner's favor.

The Court emphasized that once the Assembly roll is corrected, the benefit must flow to the municipal roll to ensure the democratic right to vote.

It held that the order of inclusion dated 03.03.2026 was the decisive factor, superseding the scheduled publication date.

The respondents were directed to insert the petitioner’s name into the electoral list to enable his participation in the election scheduled for 26.04.2026.

The Court clarified this order was passed on the peculiar facts of the case and would not serve as a general precedent.