Rajasthan HC Orders Woman’s Voter Entry Shift To Bhaniyana After Officials Left Her Pre-Election Claim Undecided, Letting Her Vote And Contest If Eligible

The petitioner sought transfer of her electoral entry from Gram Panchayat Chainpura to Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana by an objection dated 7 February 2026. A field-verification report dated 14 February 2026 recorded that she had resided for approximately three years at her father’s newly constructed house in Bhaniyana, but described the residence as temporary due to her studies.

The Court found that her February objection remained undecided; the order dated 29 October 2026 addressed a later application dated 20 September 2026.

After the petitioner’s appeal was rejected on 5 November 2026, principally on the basis that the election process had commenced, she challenged both orders under Article 226.

The election was scheduled for 16 November 2026, with nominations closing on 15 November 2026.

Rules 13 and 14 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 provide for claims and objections concerning electoral-roll entries and require their enquiry and adjudication; Rule 17 provides for preparation and publication of amendments following those decisions.

Rules 20 and 21 provide for amendment, transposition or deletion of entries and an appellate remedy, while Rule 21-A restricts such action after issuance of the public notice under Rule 23 or Rule 58 until completion of the election.

Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 requires ordinary residence to be assessed on relevant circumstances, rather than determined solely by ownership or temporary absence.

The Court applied the principle that a party cannot benefit from its own wrong, relying on Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2007) 11 SCC 447.

It also relied on Election Commission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216, for the principle that Article 243-O does not exclude all judicial review during an election; intervention may be permissible if it facilitates rather than obstructs completion of the election.

The petitioner’s claim had been made well before the election process and had proceeded to field verification, but the February objection was not adjudicated; the later order of 29 October dealt with a separate application.

The Court held that the authorities could not rely on Rule 21-A to defeat a claim left pending through their own failure to decide it at the proper stage. It distinguished a fresh post-notice request from an earlier, duly instituted claim awaiting determination.

The verification report and the allegedly different treatment of a similarly situated person also called for meaningful consideration of the petitioner’s ordinary residence and claim.

In the Court’s view, addressing the petitioner’s individual entry would not alter the electoral structure, and Article 226 intervention would scrutinise the authorities’ failure to follow the statutory process rather than derail the election.

It directed that the petitioner’s name be included in the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana and deleted from the previous village electoral list; that a supplementary list be prepared and circulated immediately to the relevant election officers and Booth Level Officers; and that she be permitted to vote at Bhaniyana and contest any post for which she was otherwise eligible, subject to her nomination being in order.