# Panchayat Poll Row in Rajasthan as MLA's Son Faces Nomination Cancellation Over Alleged Forged Court Order

> A major controversy erupted during the Surajgarh Panchayat Samiti elections in Jhunjhunu after the nomination of local MLA Shrawan Kumar's son was cancelled over an alleged fabricated High Court directive.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Rajasthan · **Published:** 2026-10-21 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/rajasthan/rajasthan-men-pnchayata-samiti-chunava-ke-daurana-kathita-pharji-adalati-adesha-para-ghire-mla-putra-parcha-kharija-hone-ke-bada-j-50001 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan Panchayat Polls, Shrawan Kumar, Nomination Cancelled, Forgery Probe

A high-voltage administrative controversy has surfaced in Jhunjhunu district during the ongoing Surajgarh Panchayat Samiti elections. Jaiprakash, son of Surajgarh MLA Shrawan Kumar, has found himself at the centre of an inquiry after his nomination papers from Ward number 7 were rejected amid allegations involving an alleged fabricated judicial order. The case centers on an attempt to get his name added to the rural electoral roll and contest the local election using a document purportedly bearing instructions from the judiciary, though the candidate himself has distanced himself entirely from the paperwork.

## The Scramble for Voter Roll Registration and Legal Action
The root of the confrontation lies in the strict eligibility requirements governing local body polls. Jaiprakash's name had originally been registered on the voter roll of the Surajgarh Municipality. However, in order to enter the race for the rural panchayat samiti, he needed to be registered within the respective rural constituency. Consequently, he submitted an application requesting the addition of his name to the voter roll of Ward number 5 in Jeeni Gram Panchayat.

Because administrative formalities could not be completed before the statutory deadlines lapsed, his name was not included on the official list. Seeking legal intervention, he approached the Rajasthan High Court by lodging a writ petition on October 15. The High Court took up the matter on October 16. Instead of issuing any emergency or interim directions permitting his entry into the voter roll, the court simply scheduled the matter for its next formal hearing on October 27.

## The WhatsApp Order and the Returning Officer's Role
October 16 was also the absolute deadline for candidates to file nomination papers for the local body election. On that day, Jaiprakash visited the office of Surajgarh Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Returning Officer Sandeep Choudhary. According to the returning officer, Jaiprakash facilitated the transmission of an alleged High Court directive directly to the officer's official WhatsApp number via a telephone conversation. Relying on a printed copy of that electronic message, the officer initially accepted the nomination papers.

A subsequent examination of the actual judicial documentation revealed significant discrepancies. The legitimate court registry records confirmed that the bench had issued no directives mandating the addition of any name to the electoral roll or instructing election officers to accept the papers. The judicial record had only listed the petition for a routine future hearing on October 27. The realization that an altered or fictitious directive might have been used to push through a nomination triggered an immediate review by senior election authorities.

## Intervention by Election Authorities and Eventual Rejection
Addressing the irregularities, District Election Officer and District Collector Dr. Arun Garg intervened to clarify the procedural breaches. He pointed out that the returning officer had forwarded the file without obtaining an original certified copy of the judicial order. Since the online portal for electoral rolls was already frozen in accordance with election schedules, the district administration approached the State Election Commission for formal advice.

The State Election Commission promptly demanded a certified copy of the judicial ruling before any action could be entertained. When the candidate failed to furnish an authentic certified document within the stipulated timeframe, election authorities formally rejected Jaiprakash's nomination on October 17. Dr. Garg reiterated that if the ongoing inquiry establishes criminal forgery or tampering with official judicial documents, severe statutory action will follow against those responsible.

## The Candidate's Clarification and Ongoing Probe
In response to the mounting controversy, Jaiprakash offered his version of the events, maintaining that he had followed lawful procedures throughout his election preparations. He acknowledged moving an application to transfer his voter registration and filing a petition before the High Court, which could not yield a voter list entry due to time constraints. However, he firmly denied ever submitting a fraudulent judicial order alongside his nomination bundle.

Jaiprakash insisted that he possessed no information regarding who transmitted the document to the returning officer's WhatsApp or how it reached official channels. At present, investigators and election monitors are working to track down the digital origin of the alleged order, scrutinizing phone records and document trails to determine who fabricated the judicial paperwork and attempted to subvert the electoral process.

## What this means for you
This episode highlights the strict legal scrutiny governing election filings and the critical importance of verified documentation.

- **For Election Candidates:** Aspirants must submit only certified and authentic judicial orders rather than unverified electronic communications during nomination. Relying on unauthorized documents can lead to immediate disqualification alongside serious criminal charges.
- **In Surajgarh and Jhunjhunu:** The electoral contest in Ward number 7 has shifted dramatically with the disqualification of a prominent political family member. Local voters will now make their choice exclusively from the remaining validly nominated contenders.
- **For Election Administrators:** Returning officers face stricter protocols against accepting digital copies without official certification. Administrative scrutiny over WhatsApp communications and unverified orders will intensify across all local body polls.
- **For General Citizens:** The episode underscores that electoral roll modifications must strictly comply with published deadlines. Once voter registration portals are frozen, last-minute legal maneuvers carry a high risk of procedural failure.

## Why this happened
This dispute emerged from eligibility constraints governing local body elections and the inability to alter voter records before statutory cutoffs.

- **Direct Trigger:** The candidate was registered on an urban municipal voter roll rather than the rural panchayat roll required for the election. When statutory deadlines passed, his transfer request to the rural voter list could not be processed administratively.
- **Judicial Timeline:** The High Court merely scheduled the candidate's writ petition for a regular hearing on October 27, declining to issue any interim order on October 16. Despite this lack of relief, a nomination was submitted relying on an alleged favorable directive.
- **Administrative Lapse:** The returning officer's initial decision to process the application using an uncertified WhatsApp message prompted higher authorities to step in. Because no certified court copy could be produced within the deadline, election authorities struck down the nomination.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. Whose nomination was cancelled in the Surajgarh Panchayat elections?
The nomination of Jaiprakash, son of Surajgarh MLA Shrawan Kumar, was cancelled for Ward number 7.

### 2. Why was the nomination rejected by election officials?
It was rejected because the candidate failed to submit an authentic, certified High Court order regarding voter roll inclusion within the deadline.

### 3. How did the issue of the alleged fake order come to light?
An uncertified order was sent to the returning officer's WhatsApp, but official court records confirmed the court had only scheduled a hearing for October 27 without issuing directions.

### 4. What explanation did candidate Jaiprakash provide?
Jaiprakash denied attaching any fake order to his papers, stating he had no knowledge of who sent the document to the returning officer.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._