Rajasthan HC Refuses to Stall Election Process Over Nomination Rejection

The Rajasthan High Court declined interference in ongoing electoral cycles, ruling that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge the rejection of nomination papers once the election process is set in motion. In a special Sunday hearing necessitated by the urgency of the matter, a single-judge bench of Justice Nupur Bhati considered a challenge against the rejection of a nomination paper for the post of Member of Zila Parishad, Barmer. The petitioner sought a directive for the acceptance of his nomination, which he claimed was rejected without due communication of reasons or an opportunity of hearing.

Key Takeaways

Primacy of Election Petitions

Aggrieved candidates must wait for the declaration of results to challenge nomination rejections through a statutory election petition rather than seeking immediate writ intervention.

Judicial Restraint During Elections

Courts are mandated to exercise extreme caution and refrain from passing any orders that could potentially impede, delay, or postpone the notified election schedule.

Statutory Remedy Availability

Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 serves as an exhaustive and efficacious remedy for all election-related disputes, including improper rejection of nominations.

Court Observations and Directions

The Rajasthan High Court emphasized that the election programme had already been notified by the State Election Commission on October 3, 2026, and the process was actively underway. Relying on settled legal principles, the Bench noted that Article 243-O of the Constitution of India creates a significant bar against judicial interference once the electoral machinery is in motion.

The Rajasthan High Court reasoned that "...once the election process has commenced, the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must exercise caution and refrain from passing orders that may interrupt, impede, delay or postpone the election process, keeping in view the constitutional mandate underlying Article 243-O."

Therefore, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Ratio

Under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, the improper rejection of a nomination paper constitutes a specific ground for an election petition under Rule 80. Consequently, once the election process has commenced, the High Court shall not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the scrutiny of nominations, as the petitioner possesses an efficacious alternative statutory remedy to challenge the election after its conclusion.

Background

The dispute arose after the petitioner, Avar Dan, filed his nomination for Ward No. 35 for the Zila Parishad elections in Barmer. Despite being listed as a candidate for the Indian National Congress, his name was omitted from the final list of contesting candidates published by the Returning Officer. The petitioner alleged that his nomination was likely rejected due to issues with the political party symbol pro forma, in violation of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, which requires the Returning Officer to record and communicate reasons for rejection.

The respondents, represented by Additional Advocate General counsel, argued that the petition was not maintainable. They cited a recent Division Bench ruling in Kanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( "D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1237/2026": 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 157), which relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar ( "(2000) 8 SCC 216": 2000 CaseBase(SC) 1068), Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman ( "(1985) 4 SCC 689": 1985 CaseBase(SC) 430), and Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. to argue against judicial interference in imminent elections. The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the respondents, noting that Rule 80(c) of the 1994 Rules specifically provides for challenges based on improper rejection of nominations.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26266/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:52105
Case Title: Avar Dan v. State Of Rajasthan and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manoj Bohra
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Jala for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG; Mr. Monal Chugh for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv./AAG

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 26037