‘Not a monopoly’: Supreme Court tells Rajasthan poll body to reconsider voter campaign plea

The Supreme Court did not allow the Rajasthan State Election Commission to end the matter with a rejection. It directed the SEC to reconsider the activists’ request to conduct a voter awareness campaign during phase 3 of the Panchayati Raj Election. The order keeps open a civic effort focused on informing voters before polling.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana, issued the direction. Advocate Prashant Bhushan had challenged the SEC’s refusal. The proposed campaign would explain democratic rights, electoral choices, NOTA, and the risks of accepting inducements for votes.

The SEC must pass an order within two days. Justice Bagchi also rejected the argument that the Commission’s own awareness programmes justified stopping other organisations. The immediate result is reconsideration, not automatic permission. The organisations’ campaign therefore remained subject to the SEC’s fresh decision.

A voter awareness campaign helps citizens understand democratic rights and electoral choices before voting. In this case, it also aimed to discourage malpractice by warning voters against accepting money or other inducements in exchange for votes. The campaign included information about None of the Above, or NOTA.

The organisations proposed Voter Awareness Yatras across Rajasthan. They planned small groups to hold interactive awareness sessions in villages. The activities were designed to explain electoral procedures and the Model Code of Conduct, rather than promote any candidate or party.

Rajasthan Election Watch, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, and partner organisations sought permission to work across 11 districts. They had conducted similar yatras during Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and local Panchayati Raj elections for about 20 years. The Supreme Court directed the SEC to reconsider their request for phase 3 of the Panchayati Raj Election.

The campaign was large in reach and longstanding in history. Rajasthan Election Watch, MKSS, and partner organisations requested permission to conduct voter awareness yatras across 11 Rajasthan districts. The planned route included Ajmer, Beawar, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Dungarpur, Jaipur, Rajsamand, Salumbar, Sirohi, Tonk, and Udaipur.

The organisations said they had continuously conducted voter awareness yatras for the past 20 years. Their work covered Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and local Panchayati Raj elections. This history formed the background to their request for another yatra before the local body and Panchayati Raj elections.

The campaign’s reach was therefore both geographic and historical. It was intended to operate across 11 districts while continuing an established civic practice. The SEC rejected permission twice, but the Supreme Court later directed the Commission to reconsider the request for phase 3 of the Panchayati Raj Election.

The Rajasthan State Election Commission initially refused permission because it had concerns about the proposed campaign’s independence. It said it apprehended that the campaign could be undertaken at the behest of another person. The SEC also pointed to its own voter awareness programmes as part of its opposition to the request.

The refusal followed applications and letters from the organisations. A September 7 letter sought permission for yatras across 11 districts. The SEC replied on September 10 that permission could not be granted under existing rules. After the Panchayati Raj elections were announced, another request was made, but permission was denied again on October 9.

The activists challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. Justice Joymala Bagchi rejected the idea that the SEC’s own initiatives could prevent other organisations from conducting similar efforts. The Court directed the SEC to reconsider the campaign request and issue an order within two days.

The Supreme Court rejected the idea that one official voter-awareness programme should exclude all others. Justice Joymala Bagchi observed that the Commission’s own initiatives could not be a ground to prevent other organisations from undertaking similar efforts. The reasoning recognises that voter education need not be limited to a single institutional source.

The organisations proposed non-partisan activities in villages. Their small groups would discuss democratic rights, electoral choices, NOTA, electoral procedures, and the Model Code of Conduct. They also sought to discourage voters from accepting money or other inducements. They said the activities would not support or oppose any candidate.

This distinction mattered because the campaign was presented as civic education, not electoral campaigning. The Court directed the SEC to reconsider the request for phase 3 of the Panchayati Raj Election and decide within two days. The judgment therefore kept space open for multiple voter-awareness efforts.

Political campaigning seeks to support or oppose candidates. The proposed voter awareness campaign had a different purpose. The organisations said it would educate citizens about democratic rights and electoral choices, including the option of None of the Above, or NOTA. It also aimed to discourage electoral malpractice.

The proposed activities involved small groups holding interactive awareness sessions in villages. Organisers planned to discuss voting procedures and the Model Code of Conduct. They would sensitise voters against accepting money or other inducements in exchange for votes. These subjects concern how elections work, rather than which candidate should win.

The organisations expressly said the activities were entirely non-partisan. They would not support or oppose any candidate. Rajasthan Election Watch, MKSS, and partners sought permission for yatras across 11 districts. The Supreme Court’s direction to reconsider the request kept this civic, information-focused activity distinct from candidate campaigning.

Representative democracy depends on citizens being able to understand their rights and electoral choices. Voter awareness helps people take part with clearer knowledge of procedures, NOTA, and the Model Code of Conduct. It can also help discourage malpractice, including accepting money or other inducements for votes.

The Rajasthan organisations illustrated this role through village sessions and awareness yatras. They said their work was non-partisan and did not support or oppose candidates. Instead, small groups would discuss democratic rights and voting choices. Their request covered 11 districts and continued a practice they said had lasted 20 years.

The Supreme Court’s response supports space for civic information efforts. Justice Bagchi said the SEC’s own programmes could not justify stopping similar work by other organisations. The Court ordered reconsideration rather than automatic permission. The case therefore highlights the importance of allowing citizens and civil-society groups to inform voters while keeping activities non-partisan.