A candidate whose nomination was listed as rejected allegedly contested and won the sarpanch election in Gadra Road Gram Panchayat in Barmer, prompting the district administration to order an inquiry into how he remained on the ballot and received an election symbol.
Pooraram secured 1,786 votes in the ongoing panchayat polls, defeating his nearest rival Kuldeep Singh by 187 votes. The dispute emerged after a list of candidates whose nominations had been rejected was circulated on social media. The list, which was publicly displayed after scrutiny, reportedly showed Pooraram’s nomination as rejected.
The nomination process for the sarpanch election was conducted on October 23. The stated reason for rejecting Pooraram’s papers was incomplete information in Appendix 6D under Provision 18, relating to a candidate’s criminal history and record of convictions. Despite the reported rejection, he was allotted an election symbol and allowed to contest.
The issue has now moved from an election-day dispute to an administrative inquiry. Barmer district collector Chinmayee Gopal said an investigation was under way. Sub-divisional officer Suresh Kumar said officials were seeking factual details from the returning officer to establish the circumstances in which Pooraram was permitted to contest after his nomination was reportedly rejected.
Bharat Singh, the brother and representative of rival candidate Kuldeep Singh, alleged that the rejection list displayed on the election officials’ notice board clearly named Pooraram. Singh claimed that the candidate was later allowed to contest either because of negligence or deliberate action by election officials. He said he had submitted a complaint to the district election officer seeking cancellation of the result.
The central procedural question is whether Pooraram’s nomination was formally rejected and subsequently restored, or whether the rejection entry reflected an error that was not corrected publicly. The report does not establish whether any reversal took place, what rule would have permitted it, or whether the other candidates were informed of a change in his nomination status.
Pooraram rejected the allegation that his nomination had been disallowed before the election. He told the Times of India that his nomination was never rejected and described the claims as rumours circulated by political opponents. He said the presiding officer had officially allotted him an election symbol and argued that his victory was lawful.
The case places the returning officer’s records, the scrutiny proceedings and the public notice of rejected nominations at the centre of the inquiry. Those documents will determine whether the result followed the prescribed election process or whether a candidate was incorrectly permitted to remain in the contest. The district administration has not yet announced the outcome of the inquiry or taken a decision on the validity of the result.
