Rajasthan High Court Admits Appeal Against SC/ST Ward Reservation Over Allegedly Fake Population Data, But Refuses To Stay Election Process

The Rajasthan High Court has admitted an appeal challenging the reservation of wards in Gram Panchayat Majhiwala for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), allegedly based on incorrect population data, but refused to stay the ongoing Panchayat election process.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu declined to interfere with the election process, observing that the State Election Commission had published the election programme for Rajasthan's Panchayat elections on October 3, 2026, thereby setting the process in motion.

Article 243-O of the Constitution restricts judicial interference in electoral matters relating to Panchayats, with the objective of preventing disruption of the election process.

The petitioner challenged the reservation of wards in Gram Panchayat Majhiwala for SC/ST candidates, alleging that the population figures used for the reservation were incorrect. He contended that there were only 14 voters belonging to the Scheduled category in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the reservation ought not to have been made.

The petitioner also challenged the notification concerning the reservation of the Sarpanch post for Panchayat Samiti Majhiwala.

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable in view of Article 243-O, since the election programme had already been published. The petitioner subsequently filed a special appeal before the Division Bench.

The petitioner argued that the election programme was issued on October 3, 2026, but the election notification contemplated under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Election Rules, 1994, had not yet been issued. Therefore, he contended, the constitutional bar under Article 243-O was not attracted.

The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the election process had commenced with the publication of the election programme by the State Election Commission and that the subsequent notifications were being issued in accordance with the prescribed process.

The Division Bench noted that the election process for Gram Panchayats across Rajasthan was underway and was scheduled to conclude by November 17, 2026.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, the Court observed that High Courts should exercise caution when elections are imminent and avoid orders that could interrupt, delay or postpone the process.

The Court observed:

“...where elections are imminent, the High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be cautious and refrain from passing orders that may interrupt, delay or postpone the election process. The bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution also serves this object.”

Accordingly, the Court declined to grant interim relief and refused to stay the election process. However, considering the legal grounds raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Division Bench admitted the appeal, issued notice to the respondents and directed that the matter be listed for hearing after six weeks.