Rajasthan HC summons State Election Commissioner on poll delay
Synopsis
The Rajasthan High Court has had enough — it summoned the State Chief Election Commissioner in person after repeated missed deadlines on Panchayat and local body polls, and warned it could hand the job to someone else entirely. With a 31 July deadline looming and the OBC Commission's report still absent, the constitutional clock is ticking loudly.
Key Takeaways
The Rajasthan High Court on 15 July summoned State Chief Election Commissioner Rajeshwar Singh and the OBC Commission Member Secretary to appear personally on Thursday .
The bench of Acting Chief Justice S.P.
Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit warned it may reassign election duties if the Commission cannot perform them.
The court had originally ordered elections by 15 April , later extended to 31 July — both deadlines missed or at risk.
The OBC Commission missed its 20 June report deadline; the government says the report will now come by 14 August .
Petitioners argue that delaying elections pending the OBC report violates the court's 22 May order and constitutes contempt.
Conducting local body elections is a constitutional duty under Article 243(K) , petitioners reminded the court.
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday, 15 July summoned State Chief Election Commissioner Rajeshwar Singh and the Member Secretary of the OBC Commission, directing both officials to appear in person on Thursday after expressing sharp displeasure over the prolonged delay in holding Panchayat and local body elections in the state. The court has asked them to explain why previous judicial orders have not been complied with.
What the Court Said
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice S.P. Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit made clear that if the State Election Commission is incapable of discharging its constitutional duty, the court may consider entrusting the responsibility to another competent authority. The bench also warned the state government against creating conditions that would compel the court to pass stringent orders.
The court orally remarked that if the officials responsible for conducting elections and preparing the OBC reservation report are unable to perform their duties, competent individuals should replace them — an unusually stern signal from the bench.
The Government's Position
Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, appearing for the state government, submitted that Other Backward Class (OBC) representation in Panchayat and local body elections is constitutionally essential, and that the reservation classification could not be finalised because the OBC Commission's report is still pending. He sought one final opportunity to proceed with the election process, stating that the Commission has assured submission of its report by 14 August.
Petitioners Push Back
Advocate Puneet Singhvi, representing petitioner and former MLA Sanyam Lodha, countered that the High Court's order of 22 May had already made clear that elections cannot be deferred pending the OBC Commission's report if it is not submitted on time. He argued that continuing to postpone the polls on this ground amounts to contempt of court.
Advocate Premchand Devanda, appearing for petitioner Giriraj Singh Devanda, pointed out that conducting Panchayat and local body elections is the constitutional obligation of the State Election Commission under Article 243(K) of the Constitution, and that the Commission has comprehensively failed to comply with the court's directives.
A Pattern of Missed Deadlines
This is not the first time the court has been forced to intervene. The Rajasthan High Court had initially directed that the elections be held by 15 April. When the government sought more time, the court extended the deadline to 31 July, with an explicit instruction that the process be completed without fail. The OBC Commission had separately been ordered to submit its report by 20 June — a deadline it missed.
With Thursday's personal appearance now mandated, the court's patience appears to have run thin. How the summoned officials respond could determine whether the elections proceed before the latest deadline or trigger further legal action.
Point of View
Yet the government's OBC Commission gambit has effectively achieved that delay anyway. The pattern here is familiar: a deadline is set, the government cites pending data, the court grants relief, and the cycle repeats. What is different now is the court's explicit warning that it may act on personnel — a step that would set a rare precedent. The real accountability question is whether the OBC Commission's report delay is administrative failure or tactical, and the court appears to be asking exactly that.
NationPress
15 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has the Rajasthan High Court summoned the State Election Commissioner?
The court summoned Chief Election Commissioner Rajeshwar Singh on 15 July because Panchayat and local body elections have not been held despite multiple court-ordered deadlines, the latest being 31 July. Officials must appear in person on Thursday to explain non-compliance with previous orders.
What is the OBC Commission's role in the election delay?
The state government says it cannot finalise OBC reservation classifications for Panchayat and local body seats without the OBC Commission's report, which was due by 20 June but has not been submitted. The government now says the report will come by 14 August.
What did the Rajasthan High Court warn it might do?
The division bench warned that if the State Election Commission cannot conduct the elections, the court may entrust the responsibility to another competent authority — an unusually strong signal that the bench is considering direct judicial intervention in the election process.
Why do petitioners say the delay amounts to contempt of court?
The court's order of 22 May explicitly stated that elections cannot be deferred if the OBC Commission's report is not submitted on time. Petitioners argue that continuing to postpone polls by citing the pending report directly violates that order and constitutes contempt.
What is Article 243(K) and why is it relevant here?
Article 243(K) of the Constitution mandates that a State Election Commission — independent of the executive — shall superintend, direct, and control the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Panchayats and municipalities. Petitioners invoked it to argue that the Commission has a non-negotiable constitutional duty that cannot be deferred at the government's convenience.
