The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that as per Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Act, 1994 (“Act”) and Rules, 1994 (“Rules”), a person had indefeasible right to be a part of election process and getting name included in the electoral roll. Such right could not be deprived basis whims and facies of the Electoral Registration Officer or due to any political intervention.

"As per the provisions contained under the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1994, a person has an indefeasible right to be a part of the election process and he/she would have a right to include his/her name in the electoral roll and cast his/her vote and even to participate in the election. He/she cannot be deprived of such right solely on the whims and fancies of the Electoral Registration Officer or on account of any political intervention."

For context, the petitioner was residing in Ward 7 of the Gram Panchayat Aalamsar Khurd, and had applied for getting her name inserted in the electoral roll of the ward. This application was initially accepted by the Electoral Registration Officer (“Officer”).

However, as alleged by the petitioner, owing to some political interference, the order was changed, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner without any notice or opportunity of hearing. Hence, the present petition was filed.

The petitioner argued that she could not be compelled to cast her vote or participate in the election process from a particular place. Her name could only be inserted in the electoral roll of the area where she was residing.

On the contrary, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner should have appealed against the order under Rule 21 of the Rules, instead of directly approaching the Court.

After hearing the contentions, the Court firstly rejected the preliminary objection. It was highlighted that as per the proviso to Rule 21(1), an appeal did not lie where a person, desiring to file an appeal, was not heard by the Officer.

It was held that considering that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner before rejecting the application, no appeal lied for the order. The Court observed,

“Such act of the respondents amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, the objection raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of these writ petitions is not sustainable. The appeal would have been maintainable, if the petitioner's application was rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer, Dhorimanna at the first instance, after affording due opportunity of hearing.”

Further, on the merits, the Court highlighted that after the application was once accepted, on account of some extraneous reasons which were not recorded in the order, the application was subsequently rejected.

The Court stated that as per Section 18(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, a person who ordinarily resided in a ward or constituency of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution, was entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that ward or constituency. It was opined,

“Right to vote is a statutory right and it is a basic feature of democracy. Arbitrary deletion from electoral roll or non-addition or non-transposition of a person's name from the electoral roll violates the principles of natural justice. The authorities cannot arbitrarily exclude such names. Principles of natural justice must be followed before deleting any name from the electoral roll. Opportunity of hearing is mandatory. Electoral roll must be prepared carefully. An individual cannot be deprived of the right to vote on the basis of whims and fancies of the authorities without following due process of law.”

Accordingly, the order of the Officer rejecting the application was quashed and set aside, and he was directed to include petitioner's name in the electoral rolls as per her desire by way of transposition.

Title: Mamta v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 351