Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against Municipal Poll Reservation, Cites Article 243-ZG Bar
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed petitions challenging the reservation of seats for the forthcoming municipal elections in the State, holding that it could not interfere with the election process after the election programme had been declared, in view of the bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the order dated August 19, 2026, by the Rajasthan State Election Commissioner (RPSC) indicated that the dates for conducting the municipal election in Rajasthan were declared and the election programme was also notified. Hence, the election process was initiated and Article 243-ZG of the Constitution was in operation.
Article 243-ZG of the Constitution bars courts from interfering in municipal electoral matters once the election process has commenced.
For context, the petitioners submitted that in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Rules (“Rules”), a list was prepared and lotteries were drawn for category-wise reservation of seats in municipalities. However, without any notice, the earlier order was changed and fresh exercise was undertaken. This act was challenged, seeking Court's interference.
It was argued that there was no justification for unequal distribution of reservation amongst the municipalities.
There was a preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the petition. It was submitted that since the RPSC had already declared the election programmed by its order dated August 19, 2026, the election process had initiated. Thus, in light of Article 243-ZG, the Court could not interfere.
On the contrary, petitioners submitted that as per Rule 10 of the Election Rules, the process commences from the date of issuance of notification of such election, and not from the date of declaration of the programme. Petitioners made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, to support this position.
After hearing the contentions, the Court made a reference to a Constitution bench Supreme Court decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors. in which it was held that once the election process commenced on issuance of election programme by Election Commission, the Court could not interfere.
In this background, the Court highlighted, “In the case of Union Territory of Ladakh (supra), the judgment was rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereas the judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) was rendered by a Constitution Bench of six Hon'ble Judges. Therefore… the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra), being a judgment of a Bench of larger strength, would prevail and would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Harish Kumar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connection petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 356