“You cannot take over or monopolise voter awareness exercises,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi told the Rajasthan State Election Commission. The Supreme Court has set aside its refusal to let a civil society group run Voter Awareness campaigns ahead of the Panchayati Raj elections, and asked it to decide afresh within 48 hours.
New Delhi: The Rajasthan State Election Commission has 48 hours to look afresh at a civil society group’s request to conduct Voter Awareness campaigns, after the Supreme Court on Monday set aside its earlier refusal in a plea filed by social activist Aruna Roy, ahead of the ongoing local body elections [Aruna Roy & Anr. v. Union of India].
The order of November 2, 2026 was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, after the Rajasthan State Election Commission was impleaded as a respondent.
“Not something within your domain”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected the Commission’s own programmes as a ground for refusal:
“That is not something within your domain. If you are conducting it, that does not stand in the way of any other authority conducting a voter awareness exercise. You cannot restrict people from doing it. They will be your helping hand. If they indulge in any corrupt practice in the name of voter awareness, you are there to regulate. But you cannot take over or monopolise voter awareness exercises.”
“Everyone has a right to go for voter awareness. You should welcome it,” Justice Bagchi remarked.
The direction
Dictating the order, CJI Surya Kant said:
“The State Election Commission, Rajasthan, is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ request for permitting them to conduct voter awareness campaigns as per the list appended to the application. Let them decide within 48 hours. Their earlier order is set aside.”
A campaign running since 2004
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, told the Court that the campaign has been conducted since 2004 and seeks to educate voters about their democratic rights, including the option of None of the Above (NOTA), and to discourage them from accepting money or other inducements for their votes. He submitted that the campaign neither supports nor opposes any candidate, and involves small groups holding interactive sessions in villages.
The group, he said, had applied twice and been turned down both times. He added that the authorities had also relied on prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), imposed across Jaipur during the election period, to reject the applications, though no more than 20 people would take part in any programme.
What the Commission said, and the prohibitory orders
The State Election Commission opposed the plea. It told the Court that it had examined the group’s representation and found that the proposed campaign could be at the behest of someone else, and that it was already running voter awareness programmes of its own.
On the BNSS prohibitory orders, the Bench observed that such restrictions do not bar meetings or processions held with prior permission, and told the petitioners that they must specify the place, date and time of each proposed programme, since a general permission cannot be sought. “Permission can be granted. We will direct them to reconsider afresh. They cannot reject it merely on that ground,” the Court said.
Four phases of polling
Rajasthan is holding its Panchayati Raj elections in four phases. Polling for Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samiti members in the final phase is scheduled for November 14, and elections for Sarpanch and Panch posts for November 16. The exercise covers 41 Zila Parishads, 457 Panchayat Samitis and 14,403 Gram Panchayats.
Why the order matters
A State Election Commission’s power of superintendence over local body polls is wide, but the order draws a line between regulating election-time activity and shutting it out. Educating voters about their rights, including NOTA, and against vote-buying sits squarely within the free and fair election the Commission is meant to secure, and the Bench made clear that the Commission’s own outreach does not give it a monopoly over that space.
At the same time, the Court kept the Commission’s regulatory role intact. It can act against any group that indulges in corrupt practice under the cover of awareness work, and applicants must still seek specific permissions under the BNSS prohibitory orders. The Commission now has to decide afresh, without relying on the grounds the Court rejected.
Case Title: Aruna Roy & Anr. v. Union of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 2, 2026
For the Petitioners: Advocate Prashant Bhushan