Rajasthan panchayat, ULB polls: Govt submits schedule to HC
Synopsis
After prolonged delays and court pressure, Rajasthan has finally put a date on its panchayat and ULB elections — ULB notification by 17 August, panchayat notification by 23 September, and all polling wrapped up by 15 November. The OBC Commission's 5 August report deadline is now the first real test of whether the Bhajanlal Sharma government will hold the line.
Key Takeaways
The Rajasthan government submitted a formal election schedule to the High Court on 20 July for long-pending Panchayati Raj and ULB elections .
The OBC Commission must submit its report by 5 August ; SC/ST/OBC and women's reservation lottery to be completed by 15 August .
Urban Local Body elections to be notified by 17 August ; Panchayat elections by 23 September .
The State Election Commission will conduct elections within 90 days of the reservation process concluding.
If the High Court approves the schedule, polling is expected to conclude in multiple phases by 15 November .
PILs were filed by Girraj Singh Devanda (panchayat delay) and former MLA Sanyam Lodha (ULB delay).
The Rajasthan government, led by Chief Minister Bhajanlal Sharma, has submitted a formal election timeline to the Rajasthan High Court for the long-delayed Panchayati Raj and Urban Local Body (ULB) elections, following the court's insistence on a concrete schedule rather than broad assurances. The submission, made on 20 July, sets the process in motion from August 2025, with polling across both tiers expected to conclude in multiple phases by 15 November.
Key Dates in the Submitted Schedule
According to the timeline placed before the court, the OBC Commission will submit its report by 5 August. Reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and women — determined through a lottery process — is to be completed by 15 August. The State Election Commission will then formally notify Urban Local Body elections by 17 August and Panchayat elections by 23 September. Elections are to be conducted within 90 days of the reservation process being finalised.
High-Level Meeting Called in Compliance with Court Order
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government informed the court that a high-level meeting was convened on 19 July under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, in direct response to the High Court's directions issued on 16 July. The meeting was attended by representatives from the State Election Commission, the OBC Commission, the Department of Local Self-Government, and the Panchayati Raj Department. The schedule submitted to the court emerged from the decisions taken at this meeting.
Why These Elections Were Delayed
The matter reached the High Court through separate Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the prolonged delay in holding local body and panchayat polls. The PIL concerning delayed Panchayat elections was filed by Girraj Singh Devanda, while the petition on delayed ULB elections was brought by former MLA Sanyam Lodha. The High Court has been closely monitoring both matters to ensure elections are held in accordance with constitutional provisions, which mandate periodic elections to local bodies.
What Happens Next
The proposed schedule is subject to the High Court's approval. If the court accepts the timeline, polling for both Panchayat and Urban Local Body elections is expected to be completed in multiple phases by 15 November. The State Election Commission will be the nodal authority overseeing the entire process once the reservation exercise is concluded. Any slippage in the OBC Commission's report or the reservation lottery could push the notification dates, making the 5 August deadline a critical early marker to watch.
Point of View
Not voluntary — a distinction that matters. Local body elections in the state are already significantly overdue, and the constitutional obligation to hold them periodically has been honoured more in breach than in observance. The OBC Commission report deadline of 5 August is the pressure point: if it slips, the entire downstream chain — reservation lottery, ULB notification, panchayat notification — moves with it, and the 15 November polling target becomes fiction. The High Court's insistence on a 'definite schedule' rather than assurances suggests it has limited patience for further delay, but enforcement remains the harder question.
NationPress
21 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the schedule submitted by the Rajasthan government for panchayat and ULB elections?
The Rajasthan government has submitted a timeline under which the OBC Commission will report by 5 August, reservation lotteries will be completed by 15 August, ULB elections will be notified by 17 August, and panchayat elections by 23 September. Polling across both tiers is expected to conclude in multiple phases by 15 November, subject to High Court approval.
Why did Rajasthan's panchayat and ULB elections get delayed?
The elections were delayed significantly beyond their constitutional due dates, prompting two separate Public Interest Litigations in the High Court — one by Girraj Singh Devanda on panchayat polls and another by former MLA Sanyam Lodha on ULB polls. The High Court has been monitoring both matters and directed the government to provide a concrete timeline.
When will Urban Local Body elections be held in Rajasthan?
ULB elections are to be formally notified by 17 August 2025, after the reservation process is completed. The State Election Commission will conduct the polls within 90 days of the reservation lottery, meaning voting could take place by mid-November.
What role does the OBC Commission play in Rajasthan's local body elections?
The OBC Commission must submit its report by 5 August 2025. This report is a prerequisite for completing the reservation allocation — covering SCs, STs, OBCs, and women — through a lottery process by 15 August, which in turn triggers the election notification process.
Has the Rajasthan High Court approved the election schedule?
As of 20 July, the High Court had received the proposed schedule from the government but had not yet formally approved it. The court had earlier sought a definite timeline instead of broad assurances, and its approval is necessary for the schedule to proceed as planned.
