Dismissed¶20

Brijbhushan v. State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2026WRIC/3920/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-C 3920 of 2026; Brijbhushan v State Election Commission U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Court No. 5; dismissed 01-05-2026; judges Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai; electoral roll Gram Panchayat Madhuban, Gonda; Vilopan Suchi; Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules 1994; locus standi — individual right to vote; necessary parties not impleaded; more than 200 voters omitted; counsel Prabhakar Nath Mishra (petitioner), Anindya Shastri (respondents 1-3).

What did the court decide?

A right to vote is an individual right exercisable by each affected person individually; there is no allegation that such persons are too poor or otherwise incapable of resorting to legal remedies, so the affected persons ought to approach the Court themselves. ¶17

Brijbhushan vs State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition seeking publication of the final electoral list of Gram Panchayat Madhuban with inclusion of omitted voters and deletion of dead/outside residents in view of the Vilopan Suchi can be maintained by the petitioner rather than by the affected voters themselves. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Inclusion or deletion of a person in the voter list is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994, which prescribe detailed procedures and a proper remedy; accordingly, such a petition cannot be maintained by a person other than the individual whose grievance is sought to be agitated.

¶18

Key takeaways

The persons whose deletion the petitioner seeks are necessary parties, since a statutory right to vote would be extinguished with regard to them, and the petitioner chose not to implead any such person.ratio¶19
No ground for interference was found; the petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 5 — Writ-C No. 3920 of 2026, Brijbhushan v. State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko and 3 others; decided May 1, 2026 by Alok Mathur, J. and Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.; DISMISSED. Petitioner, a resident of Village & Post Naubasta, Tahsil Tarabganj, Vikas Khand Wazirganj, District Gonda, sought a direction to the State Election Commission to publish the final electoral list of Gram Panchayat Madhuban adding omitted voters and deleting dead/outside residents per the Vilopan Suchi, alleging over 200 left-out persons (complaints dated 03.11.2025, 31.12.2025, 07.01.2026; applications dated 16.03.2026; earlier representations unacknowledged). Court held: (i) right to vote is an individual right to be exercised by each affected person, with no allegation of incapacity to seek remedies; (ii) inclusion/deletion is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994, which provide a proper remedy, so such a petition cannot be maintained by anyone other than the aggrieved individual; (iii) persons sought to be deleted are necessary parties whose statutory right to vote would be extinguished and were not impleaded; (iv) no details or names of persons to be added/deleted were supplied. No ground for interference; petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3920 of 2026

Brijbhushan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prabhakar Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anindya Shastri, Anindya Shastri

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 4 and Sri Anindya Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the State Election Commission and other State authorities to ensure the publication of the final electoral list by including the names of voters whose names are not mentioned in the voter/electoral list and deleting the names of those persons who are dead or residing outside the Gram Panchayat Madhuban area in view of the Vilopan Suchi.

¶13

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is a resident of Village & Post Naubasta, Tahsil – Tarabganj, Vikas Khand Wazirganj, District Gonda. It is stated that the authorities have neither added the names of those persons whose names are not mentioned in the voter list nor deleted the names of those persons who are dead or living outside the area of the Gram Panchayat or outside the country.

¶14

He has also submitted that he filed various representations to the respondents, which have not been acknowledged till date and therefore the present petition has been preferred. He has further stated in the complaint dated 03.11.2025 and 31.12.2025, 07.01.2026 and applications dated 16.03.2026 that there are more than 200 persons who have been left out, whose names are not mentioned in the voter list.

¶15

WRIC No. 3920 of 2026

¶16

¶17

Considering the case of the petitioner, it is noticed that firstly, we see no reason why a petition cannot be filed by the affected persons whose names do not appear in the voter list. A right to vote is an individual right and such a right can be exercised by each of those persons individually. There is no allegation that such persons are so poor that they cannot approach this Court or for any other reason are incapable of resorting to legal remedies for inclusion of their names in the voter list. Further, no details have been provided or names mentioned to show the person whose names are required to be added or deleted in the said voter list.

¶18

Further, the inclusion or deletion of a person in the voter list is governed by the relevant rules and statutes, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994. Detailed rules have been prescribed for the inclusion of any person whose name does not appear in the list and similarly, for the deletion of names and a proper remedy is provided therein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that such a petition cannot be maintained by a person other than the individual whose grievance is sought to be agitated in the present petition.

¶19

We also note that the petitioner has not impleaded the names of such persons whose names he seeks to delete. Undoubtedly, a statutory right to vote is sought to be extinguished with regard to these persons, who are necessary parties but the petitioner has chosen not to implead any such person.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground for interference. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed .

¶21

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶22

May 1, 2026 Ravi/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijbhushan v. State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijbhushan v. State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence , New Delhi and Others vs Jc 702100W Ex Sub. Skt Gopal Singh Chauhan of 4033 Fd. Hosp.

Dileep Saroj and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Shashank Giri and Another vs Poonam Giri and 2 Others

Ram Murat Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 14 Others

Mohammad Akbar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others