The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has ruled that a person's name cannot be arbitrarily excluded, deleted or denied from an electoral roll without following due process and giving the affected person an opportunity of hearing.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered the common order on August 19, 2026, while deciding a batch of connected writ petitions concerning inclusion and transposition of names in local electoral rolls. The Court ultimately directed the concerned authorities to include the petitioners' names in the electoral rolls of the wards where they sought transposition.
Background of the Case
The petitions arose from disputes concerning electoral rolls in Gram Panchayats in the Barmer and Balotra areas of Rajasthan. For the purpose of deciding the connected matters, the Court considered the facts and prayer in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6499/2026.
The petitioner had applied under Rules 13 and 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, seeking transposition of her name to Ward No. 7 of Gram Panchayat Aalamsar Khurd on the basis of her residence. Her application was initially accepted, but the decision was subsequently changed and her claim was rejected without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
The respondents argued that the petitioners should have used the statutory appeal available under Rule 21 of the 1994 Rules before approaching the High Court. They also contended that disputed questions of fact were involved.
Court's Observation
The High Court rejected the preliminary objection. It noted that the petitioner's application had first been allowed and the decision was later changed without informing her or providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Court observed:
“Such act of the respondents amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice.”
The Court further noted that the statutory appeal would have been an available remedy if the application had originally been rejected after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard.
On the merits, the Court referred to Section 18(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, under which a person ordinarily residing in a ward or constituency is entitled to be registered in its electoral roll.
Court's Decision
The Court emphasized that the right to vote is a statutory right and that electoral authorities must follow due process while preparing and modifying electoral rolls.
It held:
“Opportunity of hearing is mandatory. Electoral roll must be prepared carefully.”
The Court quashed the impugned orders dated February 14, 2026, along with the other challenged orders in the connected petitions. It directed the concerned Electoral Registration Officers to include the petitioners' names in the electoral rolls of the wards where they had sought transposition.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions were allowed, while pending applications were also disposed of.
