Absence Of Single Voter Can't Stall Election Or Warrant Re-Poll: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that absence of a single voter at the time of polling could not be treated as an adverse situation warranting postponement of the elections schedule fixed by the State Election Commission and hence could not be a ground for re-polling. The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that if such a situation was allowed to trigger re-polling or postponement...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that absence of a single voter at the time of polling could not be treated as an adverse situation warranting postponement of the elections schedule fixed by the State Election Commission and hence could not be a ground for re-polling.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that if such a situation was allowed to trigger re-polling or postponement of election schedule, there would be no end to election and every election would be liable to be postponed on the ground that one or other voter could not vote.
“The concept of re-poll is provided under the Rules of 1994 only when the polling is vitiated by booth capturing, large scale rigging, failure of EVM, riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity which affects the free and fair polling. Isolated absence of a single voter does not fall under any of these categories. A voter cannot claim his right to vote after expiry of time fixed for polling.”
For context, the Court was hearing a petition seeking to direct counting of the votes casted in the election for the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Khatushyamji, Sikar, on September 21, 2026, and declaration of results.
It was the case of the petitioner that the elections were conducted on the date as per the notified election schedule, as per which the counting and declaration of results had to be done on the same day. However, till the prescribed timeline for polling votes, one member had not casted her vote. The concerned returning officer on his own whim extended the deadline.
Thereafter, an information was received that FIR was filed by the concerned member's husband alleging her abduction that prevented her from casting vote. Based on this FIR, the returning officer sought guidance from the State Election Commission which directed to stay the election process and complete it on September 25, 2026.
It was argued by the petitioner that such action by the State Election Commission was contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994, It was submitted that the election process had to be as per the fixed programme and could not have been deferred because of a person who was not present for voting within the prescribed timeline.
On the contrary it was argued by the respondent that no authority or individual could deprive an elected member to cast their votes as per their own free will basis whims and fancies or on account of any political interference or enmity.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused all the relevant provisions and highlighted that Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules provided for postponement or adjournment of the polls in cases of emergencies like disturbance of public peace, natural calamity etc.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors. in which it was held that,
“…it has always been recognized to be a matter of primary importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible, according to the time schedule prescribed by the Election Commission, and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of the elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retracted or protracted.”
The Court highlighted that no FIR or complaint was lodged with the returning officer during the polling period of such abduction. Further, the FIR was also lodged only after 2 hours of expiry of the prescribed polling period.
In this light, the authorities were not justifying in adjourning the election process and deferring it to a later date since no situation existed. They were duty bound to complete the election as per the schedule without waiting for the absentee.
The Court further held that if the absentee felt aggrieved and believed that she was deprived of her right to cast vote, she had the liberty to file an election petition.
“As per the mandate contained under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994, the polling process can be adjourned only in extreme circumstances where the polling is obstructed or interrupted by riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity. The instant case does not fall under any of the above circumstances as described under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994.”
“Election process is a core tenet of a democratic setup and the election schedule fixed by the Election Commission should not be normally interfered with. This Court is of the considered view that the election schedule fixed by the State Election Commission shall not be postponed under any circumstances, except in case of adverse situations like riots, natural calamity, law and order situation or any other force majeure condition, which makes it impossible to hold the election. Mere absence of a voter cannot be treated as an adverse situation.”
In this background, the Court held that since the polling was already over as per the original programme by the State Election Commissioner, the returning officer was statutorily mandated to proceed with the counting and declare the results preferably within 24 hours.
Title: Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406