Satish Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge legality, validity and propriety of order dated 24.09.2026 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansur, whereby while exercising powers under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Manchi, has been reserved for OBC (Woman).

Principal grievance raised by the petitioners is that in the preceding Panchayati Raj elections of 2020, the same office was reserved for SC (Woman) and, therefore, its reservation again for a woman in 2026 violates the constitutional and statutory requirement of rotation under Article 243D of the Constitution of India and as well as provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1994’) and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1994’).

It is stated by the petitioners that the impugned reservation was made through a lottery without disclosure of the roster, eligible pool or proceedings and without excluding Gram Panchayats which had already been reserved for women in 2020. The petitioners further alleged violation of Articles 243D of the Constitution of India and pleaded lack of transparency and failure to consider their representation. It has also been stated that the lottery cannot override the mandatory rule of rotation and since the election process has not yet commenced, the challenge to the reservation order is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of above, the petitioners accordingly prayed for quashing of the reservation of seat at Gram Panchayat Manchi for OBC (Woman), and a declaration has also been sought to the effect that the aforesaid seat ought to be kept unreserved in general elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions, 2026 in view of the previous reservation of SC (Woman) category, or alternatively a fresh, transparent lottery should have been drawn strictly in accordance with the rule of rotation.

Shri Punit Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 24.09.2026, whereby the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Manchi has been reserved for OBC (Woman), is contrary to the constitutional and statutory mandate of rotation. It is pointed out that in the preceding election of 2020, the very same office was reserved for SC (Woman) and, therefore, its reservation again for a woman in 2026 defeats the object of rotation contemplated under Article 243D(4) of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted that Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Act of 1994 and theRules of 1994, particularly Rule 7 and Rule 9, have to be construed in consonance with Article 243D of the Constitution of India. A lottery is only a mode of allotment from a legally constituted pool and cannot override the requirement of rotation. Since seat of office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Manchi had already been reserved for a woman in 2020, it ought to have been excluded from the women's pool for 2026, particularly when several other Gram Panchayats had not been so reserved in the preceding election.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents have not disclosed the roster, category-wise pool, calculation sheet or proceedings of the lottery and, therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether the principle of rotation was actually followed. He submits that the petitioners have not challenged reservation as such, but are aggrieved by its repeated application to the same Gram Panchayat to reserve it for woman candidate consecutively. Learned Counsel emphasised that such action is apparently arbitrary and violative of Article 243D of the Constitution of India, Section 15 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994. Learned Counsel accordingly prayed for quashing of the impugned reservation and further prayed for drawing a fresh lottery after preparing the pool in accordance with the prescribed rotational scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Narendra Subhash Pelmahale vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, (Writ Petition No. 12576/2025 decided on 14.07.2026).

Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State of Rajasthan, while opposing the writ petition, would submit that the petitioners have combined and merged reservation of seats with reservation of the office of Sarpanch. Section 15 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 principally operate in relation to seats/wards, whereas reservation of Sarpanch offices is specifically governed by Section 16 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 9 of the Rules of 1994. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1994 prescribes the manner of allocation of reserved offices and, in respect of women, specifically contemplates allotment by draw of lots.

Learned Advocate General further submitted that reservation for women is horizontal in nature, which operates across the vertical categories of SC, ST, OBC and General. Consequently, the requirement of rotation, insofar as women's reservation is concerned, cannot be understood to mean that a Gram Panchayat which had an SC-Woman Sarpanch in the previous term becomes automatically ineligible for an OBC-Woman reservation in the succeeding term. Any rotation applicable to women's reservation has to operate within the respective vertical category/pool in accordance with the statutory scheme and the mere fact that Gram Panchayat Manchi was reserved for SC (Woman) in 2020 does not prohibit its reservation for OBC (Woman) in 2026.

Learned Advocate General submitted that Article 243D(4) of the Constitution of India leaves the manner of allotment and rotation to the State Legislature and the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 7(13) of the Rules of 1994, relied upon by the petitioners, cannot be mechanically extended to Sarpanch offices when Rule 9 of the Rules of 1994 separately governs such offices. The petitioners have also not produced the complete roster or reservation record of all 45 Gram Panchayats to establish that the statutory procedure or prescribed rotation was violated. It is accordingly submitted that the lottery was conducted by the competent authority in accordance with the Rules of 1994 and there is no demonstrated illegality or mala fides and the petitioners have no vested right to have the office of Sarpanch kept in the unreserved category. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Heard rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Since the controversy revolves around following provisions of Constitution of India, the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1994, hence, the same are being reproduced hereunder:

After meticulously examining the aforesaid provisions, this Court finds that the constitutional validity and interpretation of the reservation scheme under the Act of 1994 and theRules of 1994 have to be examined in the backdrop of Article 243D of the Constitution of India. Article 243D of the Constitution of India provides for reservation of seats for SCs and STs broadly in proportion to their population, reservation for women within such reserved categories, reservation of not less than one-third of the total directly elected seats for women and rotation of reserved seats. In respect of Chairpersons, reservation for SCs, STs and women is to be made in the manner prescribed by the State Legislature, with rotation among different Panchayats. Article 243D(6) of the Constitution of India also permits the State Legislature to provide reservation for Backward Classes.

A bare analysis of the above would make it clear that the constitutional scheme carves out a clear distinction between category-wise reservation and women's reservation. Reservation for SCs, STs and Backward Classes is category-based or vertical, whereas reservation for women operates across those categories, and is horizontal in its nature and application. A seat reserved for a SC woman remains a SC-reserved seat, additionally earmarked for a woman; similarly, a ST-woman or Backward Class-woman seat remains within the respective category. Women's reservation, therefore, cannot be treated as an independent compartment displacing the underlying category-wise reservation.

Quite significantly, Section 15 of the Act of 1994 carries the constitutional mandate further by providing reservation of not less than one-half of the seats reserved for SCs, STs and Backward Classes for women belonging to those categories and not less than one-half of the total directly elected seats for women, including SC/ST/Backward Class women. Thus, State of Rajasthan has prescribed a higher level of women's representation than the constitutional minimum.

It is noteworthy that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 provides the mechanism for giving effect to this scheme. The eligible wards for SC and ST reservation are identified and arranged according to the prescribed population criteria and assigned serial numbers by arranging the same on the basis of decreasing population of that particular category, whereafter the requisite seats, including women seats, are allocated in the prescribed sequence. Backward Class seats are thereafter identified from the remaining seats in accordance with the Rules. The process consequently involves first determining the applicable category-wise reservation and then accommodating the requisite women component within those categories and within the overall women quota.

This Court finds that undeniably rotation is an integral part of this scheme. It is intended to distribute the benefit of reservation among different constituencies over successive electoral cycles and to prevent its permanent attachment to particular constituencies. Rotation, therefore, does not necessarily involve a fresh and wholly independent exercise at every election; the previous allocation and the stage reached in the prescribed cycle are relevant in determining the succeeding allocation.

The same principle applies to women's reservation, while maintaining its horizontal character. The women component within SC reservation has to operate within the SC seats, similarly, within ST reservation within the ST seats, and within Backward Class reservation within the Backward Class seats. The remaining women seats required to satisfy the overall statutory quota are to be identified from the other eligible seats in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Consequently, the category-wise and women reservations have to be harmoniously worked out so that both requirements are simultaneously satisfied.

Accordingly, the validity of any particular reservation or rotation exercise cannot be tested merely by examining whether the prescribed percentage has been mathematically achieved or not. While examining a particular reservation notification, the material enquiry is whether the authorities have correctly determined the category-wise reservation; thereafter, whether they have accommodated the women component within the respective categories and the overall women quota or not and thereafter, whether that authorities applied the prescribed rotational mechanism without arbitrarily repeating or excluding any constituency contrary to the applicable cycle or not. The mere fact that a particular Ward or Panchayat was reserved for women in an earlier election does not, by itself, render its reservation in a subsequent election impermissible. The legality depends upon the category-wise sequence, the horizontal women component and the rotational cycle prescribed by the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1994, read consistently with Article 243D of the Constitution of India.

So far as the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narendra Subhash Pelmahale (supra), as relied upon by the petitioners, this Court finds that as the said decision was rendered in the context of the specific provisions of Section 30(4)(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Rule 2A(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, the said decision, therefore, cannot be mechanically applied to the statutory scheme operating in Rajasthan, where Section 15 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 have to be construed harmoniously with Article 243D of the Constitution of India, particularly the distinction between category-wise reservation and the horizontal reservation for women. The above judgment does not lay down a general proposition, rather its conclusion is based upon the particular rotational mechanism prescribed by the Rules prevalent in the State of Maharashtra.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis and discussion, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 24.09.2026 has been issued strictly in consonance with the Constitutional scheme as also statutory frame and does not violate the rotational scheme prescribed under the law. Hence, no jurisdictional infirmity or illegality has been committed by the respondents in reserving office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Manchi for OBC (Woman) notwithstanding that in the preceding Panchayati Raj elections of 2020 also, the same office was reserved for SC (Woman) and hence, no interference in the impugned order is warranted.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.