Court reiterates prohibition on judicial interference in ongoing elections but safeguards candidate's right to participate by restraining coercive actions till next hearing
In a significant judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), the Court has firmly upheld the principle that once an election process has commenced, courts cannot interfere with the election schedule or related electoral matters through writ jurisdiction. However, recognizing the delicate balance between electoral integrity and personal liberty, the Court granted interim protection to the petitioner, Anil Mittal, a candidate contesting for the Chairman post of the Municipal Board, Kekri, from any coercive action including arrest until the next hearing.
The petitioner sought directions to prevent the postponement of the election scheduled for September 21, 2026, at 10:00 AM, to ensure he was not disqualified on the basis of a complaint alleging illicit gratification to voters, and to protect his liberty by restraining the police from arresting him on the eve of the election. The complaint was lodged late night by a ward member accusing the petitioner of offering gratification to secure votes. No FIR had been registered at the time of the hearing, but police officials were reportedly stationed at the petitioner's residence, allegedly to arrest him and thwart his participation.
Relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Court reiterated that the Constitution (Article 329(b)) and the Representation of the People Act envisage a special regime for electoral disputes that bars judicial interference during the election process. The Court emphasized that any challenge to the conduct or validity of the election should be raised only after the completion of the election through the appropriate election petition mechanism and not through interim writ petitions.
However, acknowledging the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court recognized the petitioner's apprehension of arrest as a legitimate ground for interim relief. Noting the absence of an FIR and the imminent election, the Court directed the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, including arrest or detention, until the next date of hearing fixed for October 7, 2026. This interim protection was granted to ensure the petitioner's right to participate in the election was not unjustly curtailed.
The Court also clarified that while the Returning Officer remains free to act upon any complaint in accordance with law, the mere existence of such a complaint does not justify judicial intervention in the ongoing election process.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold the sanctity and timely conduct of elections while simultaneously safeguarding individual rights against potential misuse of power. It reiterates the principle that courts are closed to pre-poll disputes except in exceptional circumstances such as immediate threat to liberty.
Bottom Line:
Election law - Once election process has commenced, Court cannot interfere with election schedule or issues affecting conduct of election in writ jurisdiction - However, on specific apprehension of arrest immediately before polling, interim protection against coercive action may be granted to safeguard participation in election and personal liberty.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21, Article 226, Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India; Representation of the People Act
Anil Mittal v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983496
