The Gujarat High Court on Monday (April 6) directed the authorities to include the name of a man in the electoral roll of the concerned legislative assembly constituency, after noting that despite an earlier order directing his inclusion the petitioner's name had been left out by the electoral officer. In doing so the court said that the earlier order by the concerned officer who had accepted the petitioner's plea for inclusion was passed prior to publication of preliminary roll, and in view of the fact that final list was scheduled for publication on April 10 the petitioner cannot be denied the right to participate in the polls due to a technicality. The petitioner had challenged an endorsement dated 4.4.2026 by which the Electoral Officer has refused to include his name in the electoral roll. A division bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra observed,"From the above facts, what is clear is that the name of the petitioner was in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency but was deleted since he had moved his residence. However, subsequently on 8.2.2026, much before the preliminary list was published, he had made an application for the inclusion of his name and this request was also accepted by the concerned officer on 3.3.2026, once again before the publication of the preliminary list under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994.In the light of this particular fact that the name of the petitioner was ordered to be included in the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency, notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate publication is scheduled on 11.4.2026, in our view, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to consider the petitioner's name as having been included by virtue of the order dated 3.3.2026 and permit him to participate in the election, which is scheduled on 26.4.2026". The State Election Commission argued that the basis for preparation of the preliminary list was the publication of the electoral roll on 17.2.2026 by the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission was bound to follow the said electoral roll.The court said that while there was no quarrel with this proposition, however the fact remained that before the preliminary list was published by the State Election Commission on 23.3.2026, the electoral officer under the RP Act had accepted the application of the petitioner for including his name by passing an order on 3.3.2026. Therefore, the publication of the preliminary list on 23.3.2026 under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 pales into insignificance, the court said. The court also rejected the State ECI's submission that any intrusion into the electoral process at this stage would derail the entire process and such a course of action should not be entertained. It said:"Firstly, as stated above, the name of the petitioner has been ordered to be included in the electoral list has already been made on 3.3.2026 and once his name has been ordered to be included, by placing reliance on a technicality, such as Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 1994 or the publication of the preliminary list on 23.3.2026 which was in accordance with the Assembly Constituency list dated 17.2.2026, the right of a citizen to participate in the election cannot be denied.Secondly, by virtue of the order dated 3.3.2026, the name of the petitioner would become a part of the electoral rolls and formal publication of this list, which is scheduled on 10.4.2026, cannot result in denial of the right of the petitioner to participate in the electoral process. It is to be borne in mind that every resident of the local self-government has a right to participate in the electoral process and the only condition is that he should be on the electoral roll".The bench said that the manner in which the electoral roll is to be operated is governed by the rules, however, once the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency is corrected, the benefit of the same should be given to the petitioner by incorporating his name in the final list published under the Rules, 1994.BackgroundThe petitioner's name was included in the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency in 2021. However, since he had shifted his residence, his name came to be deleted during the course of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner moved an application to include his name on 8.2.2026. On 17.2.2026, the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls of the Legislative Assembly, published an electoral roll in which the petitioner's name was not found. This was because the petitioner was not available when the enumerating officer visited his residence and he had already shifted his residence. On 3.3.2026, the application filed by the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll in the Legislative Assembly was accepted by the Electoral Registration Officer and his name was ordered to be included in the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency. Though this application has been accepted, the final electoral list is stated to be published on 10.4.2026. On 23.3.2026, as required under Rule 4 of the Page 2 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Registration of Electoral Votes) Rules 1994, the basis for preparation of this preliminary list was the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency. Though the petitioner's application for inclusion had been accepted, but his name was not found in the list of voters published by ECI on 17.2.2026. The petitioner pursued the officer under the Rules, 1994 to incorporate his name since his request to be included in the Assembly Constituency electoral roll had been accepted by the concerned officer on 3.3.2026. However, the authority refused to incorporate his name by placing reliance on sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1994. The petitioner thus moved the high court. The court thus directed the concerned authorities to insert the petitioner's name, which would formally be reflected in the electoral list, scheduled to be published on 10.4.2026. The court allowed the writ petition, while clarifying that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case. Case title: JAYESH BATUKBHAI PATEL(VANANI) v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORSR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5056 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download Order
Loading page, please wait…