Right To Vote Cannot Be Denied Without Notice: Rajasthan HC

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a batch of orders rejecting applications for transposition of names in Panchayati Raj electoral rolls, holding that a person's statutory right to vote cannot be taken away without notice or an opportunity of hearing, and cannot be defeated by political intervention or the whims of the Electoral Registration Officer.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a batch of eight connected writ petitions, all of whom had sought transposition of their names in the electoral rolls of the Panchayati Raj institutions of their respective places of residence.

Since common questions of fact and law arose in all the petitions, the court, with the consent of counsel for the parties, decided them by a common order, taking the facts and prayer in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6499/2026, filed by Vimla D/o Shri Hanuman Ram, as illustrative. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in terms of Rules 13 and 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, an application had been submitted before the Electoral Registration Officer, Dhorimanna, for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll of Ward No.7, Gram Panchayat Aalamsar Khurd, which was initially accepted with reasons recorded; however, the decision was subsequently reversed on account of political interference, without any notice or hearing being afforded to the petitioner.

The respondents opposed the petitions on the ground of maintainability, contending that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1994 which had not been availed, and that disputed questions of fact were involved requiring recourse to the statutory Appellate Authority rather than a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Rejecting the preliminary objection, the court noted that the proviso to Rule 21(1) itself bars an appeal where the person aggrieved was not afforded a hearing by the Electoral Registration Officer on the matter forming the subject of the appeal. Since the petitioners' applications had been allowed and then reversed on the very same day, or shortly thereafter, without notice, the statutory appellate remedy was never truly available to them, and the objection as to maintainability could not be sustained.

On the merits, the court found that the Electoral Registration Officer had initially allowed the petitioners' applications for transposition, recording cogent reasons, but had thereafter reversed the decision in a single line, without any justification, evidently on account of extraneous and undisclosed considerations. Referring to Section 18(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which entitles a person ordinarily resident in a Ward or Constituency to be registered in its electoral roll, the court held:

“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... 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.”

It further held: 

“...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.”

Accordingly, the court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 14 February 2026 and the corresponding orders in each of the connected petitions, and directed the concerned Electoral Registration Officers to include the names of the petitioners in the electoral rolls of their choice by way of transposition. All the connected writ petitions were allowed in these terms, with pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Appearances:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Joshi with Mr. Mahipal Singh Deora and Mr. Abhijeet Singh Charan, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal; Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav with Mr. Arpit Yoganandi and Mr. Nilesh Choudhary, Advocates.

Case Title: Vimla D/o Shri Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6499/2026, connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7411, 6684, 7407, 7510, 7686, 7712 and 7755 of 2026 [2026:RJ-JD:41027]