The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted interim protection in two separate matters heard urgently on Sunday, September 20, 2026, shortly before elections for the Chairperson posts of two Municipal Councils. The cases concerned apprehensions of arrest or coercive action that, according to the petitioners, could affect their participation in the scheduled elections.
Sushil Midha v. State of Rajasthan
In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9141/2026, Sushil Midha @ Bittu Midha approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 258/2026 registered at Police Station Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar. The FIR invoked Sections 223(a), 126(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Midha had been elected as a Ward Member on September 14 and was subsequently declared a candidate for the Chairperson election on September 18. The election was scheduled for September 21. The FIR was registered on September 19 concerning an alleged incident dated September 16. His counsel argued that the timing of the FIR raised concerns about his participation in the election.
The State opposed the request and disputed the allegation that the FIR was politically motivated. It submitted that the allegations disclosed offences under both the BNS and the SC/ST Act.
Justice Sunil Beniwal noted the approximately three-day gap between the alleged incident and registration of the FIR and also took note of its registration soon after Midha was declared a Chairperson candidate. The Court further noted that the alleged offences were bailable except those under the SC/ST Act. Considering the circumstances, the Court granted interim protection.
The Court directed that Midha “shall not be arrested” in connection with the FIR until the next date. The matter was made returnable on October 7, 2026.
Sumit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23248/2026, nine elected councillors of the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh, approached the Court before the September 21 Chairperson election. They stated that they had been elected from their respective wards and were required to exercise their voting rights in the Chairperson election.
The petitioners claimed that they were facing threats of arrest and referred to the arrests of similarly situated persons. They also alleged that their houses had been raided and that certain family members had been detained. The respondents, however, submitted that no FIR against the petitioners had been placed on record and that their apprehension was unsupported by specific material.
Justice Nupur Bhati observed that the petitioners had not produced specific material showing that they were likely to be prevented from voting. Nevertheless, given the imminent election and the apprehension of coercive action, the Court considered limited interim protection appropriate.
The Court held that “limited interim protection ought to be granted” to ensure that the petitioners could participate in the election and exercise their right to vote.
Accordingly, respondents were directed not to take coercive action against them except strictly in accordance with due process of law.
The matter was listed after one week.
