The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has quashed a State Election Commission order deferring the election of the Chairman of the Khatushyamji Municipal Board after one of the 20 elected members did not vote, holding that a poll cannot be postponed because a single voter is absent, and has directed the counting of the 19 votes cast on September 21.
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has set aside an order of the State Election Commission that stayed the election of the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Khatushyamji, in Sikar district, and rescheduled it to September 25, after one of the 20 elected members failed to vote within the notified polling hours, and has directed the Returning Officer to count the 19 votes cast on September 21 and declare the result [Vinita Pooniya v. State of Rajasthan and Others].
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order on September 24, 2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19497 of 2026, filed by an elected councillor of Ward No. 11. The allegations about the absent member’s whereabouts were made in an FIR and have not been tested, and the Court has left it open to her to challenge the election by an election petition.
What happened on polling day
The State Election Commission notified the municipal election programme on August 19, 2026, with elections for members held in two phases and counting on September 14. The election of Chairpersons of the Municipal Boards was fixed for September 21, with polling from 10 am to 2 pm and counting immediately afterwards. At Khatushyamji, 19 of the 20 elected members voted before 2 pm, and one member from Ward No. 10 did not.
According to the petition, the Returning Officer then extended the voting time repeatedly, from 2 pm to 2.30 pm, then to 5 pm, 8 pm, 10.30 pm and finally 11.30 pm. He then wrote to the State Election Commission for guidance, citing an FIR (No. 181/2026) lodged at Police Station Khatu Shyamji by the absent member’s husband, alleging that she had been abducted and could not vote. The petitioner says the FIR was registered two hours and 13 minutes after the original polling deadline. On September 22, the Commission ordered the process stayed and directed that it be completed on September 25.
What the parties argued
Senior Advocate Major R.P. Singh, for the petitioner, argued that the Returning Officer extended the time on his own whim, that the deferment violated the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994, that the process had to be completed on the votes cast within the fixed time, and that a person absent at the polling station cannot hold up an election. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad.
For the State and the Commission, counsel Amit Kuri argued that one member had been abducted and could not vote, that the time was therefore extended under Rule 78(6)(xii) read with Rule 80, that the extensions were recorded in a note sheet signed by the petitioner, so she was estopped, and that the High Court’s order of September 21 in Ram Avtar Saini v. State of Rajasthan had held that newly elected councillors are entitled to take part in the Chairperson’s election and had left the Commission to decide the matter.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that Rules 24 and 25 of the 1994 Rules deal with polling and its hours, Rule 41 with the closing of the poll, Rules 52 and 53 with postponement and adjournment of a poll, and Rules 63 and 68 with counting and declaration of the result. It observed that Rules 52 and 53 allow a poll to be postponed or adjourned only in emergencies such as riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity, and that none of these arose. It also noted that no FIR or complaint about an abduction was made to the Returning Officer during polling hours, and that the FIR was registered more than two hours after the poll had closed.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, the Court said that once an election programme is issued, elections should be concluded as early as possible on the notified schedule, and that disputes should await the end of the election. It held that the authorities were duty bound to complete the election on the votes cast between 10 am and 2 pm on September 21, without waiting for a member who was absent when the poll closed.
On the right to vote, the Court held that it is a statutory right to be exercised at the time, place and manner the Election Commission prescribes. If a voter chooses not to be present, or fails to be present, at the time of polling, it said, the election cannot be stalled or a re-poll ordered at that voter’s instance, since otherwise no election would ever end. It added that the Rules provide for a re-poll only where polling is vitiated by booth capturing, large-scale rigging, failure of voting machines, riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity, and that the isolated absence of a single voter is not such a case. Rules 63 and 68, it held, are mandatory, and the Returning Officer must count and declare the result immediately after polling.
The directions
The Court disposed of the petition with four directions. The election schedule fixed by the State Election Commission is not to be postponed except in adverse situations such as riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity. The absence of a single voter at the time of polling cannot be a ground for re-polling, and the Commission’s order of September 22 was quashed. The Returning Officer was directed to count the votes cast on September 21 between 10 am and 2 pm and declare the result under Rules 63 and 68, preferably within 24 hours of receiving a certified copy of the order. The result is subject to any remedy of an election petition available under the law. The Court also said that the absent member, if she considers that she was deprived of a chance to take part for reasons beyond her control, is at liberty to challenge the election by an election petition under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and the 1994 Rules.
What followed, as reported
According to IANS, the ballot box was brought from the strongroom and the 19 votes were counted on Saturday, September 26. It reported that the petitioner, Vinita Poonia, a councillor from Ward 11 and a candidate for Chairperson, received 10 votes and Prem Devi received 9, so that she was declared Chairperson by one vote. The reports describe the petitioner as a Congress candidate and her rival as a BJP candidate, and say the police had located the absent member after her husband’s complaint. These details come from media reports and not from the Court’s order.
Why it matters
The order applies the settled rule that election schedules are not to be disturbed, and holds that the powers of postponement and adjournment in the Rajasthan municipal rules are confined to emergencies, so that one voter’s absence, without more, does not qualify. It also shows the Court separating the question of whether the poll can be stalled, which it answered on the rules, from the question of why the member did not vote, which it left to an election petition.
The Court made no finding on the abduction allegation, which is the subject of an FIR, and it noted only that no complaint was made during polling hours. Whether the absent member, or anyone else, files an election petition will decide whether the result is tested further.
Case Title: Vinita Pooniya v. State of Rajasthan and Others [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19497 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Major R.P. Singh, assisted by Advocates Ashish Punia, Abhiraj Singh Deval, Anchal Rathore, Rituraj Bhullar, Anushka Khandelwal and Sanwar Chaudhary, appeared for the petitioner, and Advocates Amit Kuri and Ayush Sharma appeared for the respondents.