ગુજરાતી
English
Gujarat High Court Dismisses 18 Complaints
Dilip Patel
Ahmedabad, May 26, 2026
Ten critical issues emerged during the local government elections—issues for which neither the Election Commission, the courts, nor the system itself has any answers. These issues include the removal of 13 percent of voters’ names from the electoral rolls, the cancellation of candidates’ nomination forms, the unopposed election of candidates, the misuse of police authority, systemic irregularities, government interference, money laundering, and complaints lodged by both voters and political parties—as well as the horse-trading of candidates following their election.
The verdict on the 2026 elections is clear: this was not a free and fair electoral exercise. 
During the 2026 Gujarat local body elections, political parties other than the BJP—as well as candidates and commentators—leveled various allegations against the Gujarat State Election Commission.
Questions were raised regarding the large number of candidates elected unopposed. With approximately 730 seats being declared uncontested, opposition parties questioned whether pressure had been exerted on candidates or if a political imbalance had been engineered in certain areas.
In many constituencies, the electoral contest appeared weak.
Issues concerning voter lists—specifically the addition and deletion of names—persisted throughout the process.
Several candidates and local leaders lodged complaints regarding missing names in the voter lists, delays in the revision process, and other related discrepancies.
Political allegations were raised suggesting that the ruling BJP was deriving an indirect advantage from the situation. It was alleged that the ruling party had secured an administrative advantage within the electoral process.
The State Election Commission, however, refuted these allegations.
In certain regions, questions were raised regarding the ward demarcation and reservation allocation arrangements for newly constituted municipalities and metropolitan areas.
The manner in which wards are delineated can have significant political ramifications.
Thousands of candidates failed to even retain their security deposits, and the electoral capacity of the opposition parties appeared diminished. Attempts were made to attribute this outcome to an unbalanced political landscape.
In the local government elections, a total of 32,748 nomination forms were filed for 9,992 out of the 10,000 available seats. (Many individuals had filed multiple nominations.) This left a pool of 27,297 candidates. Subsequently, 22% of these candidates withdrew their names, resulting in 25,579 candidates ultimately contesting the elections.
The State Election Commission refrained from addressing the grievances raised by the candidates. Furthermore, no court was willing to hear the cases pertaining to these matters.
Names of 13% of Voters Cancelled
—Voters’ Names Removed from Rolls—
The voter list utilized for the 2026 Gujarat local body elections had undergone an extensive process of additions and deletions during the preceding voter list revision exercise (known as the Special Intensive Revision—SIR). Previous Voters (Pre-revision) – 50,843,436
Final Voters (Post-revision) – 44,030,725
Names Removed from Electoral Roll – 6,812,711
New Voters Added Post-Draft – 560,616
Based on the names added after the draft, the proportion of names removed from the electoral roll stood at 13.4 percent, while the proportion of newly added voters was 1.3 percent.
**Cancellation of Nomination Papers**
The percentage of cancelled nomination papers is estimated to range between 22 and 28 percent. (This estimate accounts for instances where a single candidate may have submitted multiple forms.)
The number of candidates who won unopposed was 707. The number of candidates who withdrew their nominations was 1,536, while the number of candidates whose nominations were cancelled stood at 11,344.
**Cancelled Candidates**
Municipal Corporation – 575
District Panchayat – 1,233
Municipality – 584
Taluka Panchayat – 4,453
In total, the State Election Commission rejected the applications of 11,344 candidates seeking to contest the elections.
**18 Cases in the Gujarat High Court**
On April 25, 2026, the Gujarat High Court dismissed 18 petitions challenging the rejection of candidates’ nomination papers—as well as the acceptance of opposing candidates’ nominations—in the local body elections. The Court ruled that once the election process has commenced, such disputes cannot be adjudicated under Section 226.
These petitions were filed by candidates following the rejection of their nominations. These cases were associated with Danta, Samari, Shivdivdar, Meetha, Valsad, Limbdi, Dehgam, Banthiwada, Vav-Tharad, Dhrangadhra, Dahod, Tharad, Savli, Mandvi, Palitana, Visnagar, Bhavnagar, and Surat.
During the 2026 local body elections, the majority of complaints/disputes noted in public reports consisted of petitions filed in the High Court challenging the rejection of nomination forms; not all of them were “Police FIRs.”
In Danta, Banaskantha, a petition was filed challenging the rejection of a nomination form. The dispute centered on issues regarding the “three-child rule,” documentary defects, or the nomination process itself.
In Samari (Karjan), Vadodara, a challenge was raised against the rejection of a nomination, citing documentary defects and procedural objections.
In Shivdivdar (Sutrapada), Gir Somnath, a dispute arose regarding the verification of a candidate’s eligibility, specifically citing a deficiency in the necessary documents.
In Meetha (Nakhatrana), a representation was submitted regarding the cancellation of candidacies, wherein candidates’ nominations were rejected on the grounds of deficiencies in their affidavits and supporting documents.
In Valsad, an application was filed challenging the rejection of a candidacy, alleging irregularities in the submitted documents.
In Limbdi, Surendranagar, a dispute arose concerning a nomination form, with allegations pointing to defects in the form or issues regarding the proposer’s signature.
In Dehgam, Gandhinagar, objections were raised against a candidacy, highlighting issues related to formal procedural requirements.
In Banthiwada (Vav), Banaskantha, a dispute regarding candidacy verification arose, citing deficiencies in the submitted documents.
In Vav-Tharad, Banaskantha, a representation was submitted challenging a candidacy, raising issues concerning the caste certificate and the provision of necessary information.
In Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar, a dispute regarding a candidacy occurred, wherein deficiencies were identified in the police clearance certificate and the official notification. A case involving the cancellation of a candidacy came to light in Dahod. Reports emerged of a large number of nomination forms being rejected across the district. The stated reasons included discrepancies during verification and incomplete documentation.
In Tharad, Banaskantha, a petition was filed challenging a candidacy. Procedural irregularities were cited as the grounds for the challenge.
A dispute regarding a candidacy arose in Savli, Vadodara. The cancellation was attributed to deficiencies found in the candidate’s nomination documents.
In Mandvi, a formal representation was submitted concerning the cancellation of a candidacy. The stated reason for the cancellation was the omission of essential details.
In Palitana, a total of 47 nomination forms were rejected.
In Visnagar, a dispute regarding the verification of a candidacy was attributed to discrepancies found within the submitted documents.
In Bhavnagar, a controversy erupted involving allegations of pressure being exerted on a candidate, as well as the candidate’s sudden disappearance. Allegations of coercion were leveled against the candidate, and complaints were subsequently lodged by the candidate’s family members.
In most regions, the primary disputes centered on issues such as the cancellation of nomination forms, deficiencies in documentation, caste certificates, police clearance certificates, the validity of proposers’ signatures, and compliance with the “three-child rule.” Additionally, distinct political or local grievances were observed in the districts of Surat and Bhavnagar.
Nominations were rejected for a variety of reasons, includ—
…include violations of the ‘three-child rule,’ the absence of caste certificates, incomplete police clearance certificates, non-payment of municipal dues, criminal convictions, failure to disclose pending cases, discrepancies in order forms, and errors in the proposer’s signatures.
Challenging the rejection of their own nominations—and, in some instances, the acceptance of their opponents’ nominations—the petitioners argued that:
The Returning Officers acted arbitrarily, unlawfully, and with mala fide intent.
The High Court was petitioned to intervene and grant permission to contest the elections. The Government Pleader argued that the Constitution bars judicial interference in electoral matters, and that candidates should seek relief solely through election petitions *after* the conclusion of the polls.
A bench comprising Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra cited a Supreme Court ruling. The judgment reiterated that Articles 243O and 243ZG impose a clear constitutional embargo on the exercise of writ jurisdiction in disputes pertaining to Panchayat and Municipal elections—particularly where statutory remedies, such as election petitions, are already available.
Dismissing the petitions, the bench observed: “Needless to say, the option to file an election petition—in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statutes—shall remain available to the petitioners even after the conclusion of the elections.”
**Local Bodies: Number and Seats**
Municipal Corporations – 15 – 1,044
Municipalities – 84 – 2,624
District Panchayats – 34 – 1,090
Taluka Panchayats – 260 – 5,234
**Total: 393 Bodies | 9,992 Seats** (10,005 seats including by-elections) (Google Translation from Gujarati; refer to the original report)
