Court Denies Writ Petition Against Candidate's Nomination Acceptance; Maintains Judicial Non-Interference in Ongoing Election Process
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee challenging the acceptance of a nomination paper due to alleged discrepancies in the candidate's affidavit. The petitioners contended that the affidavit submitted in Form 26 by a candidate contesting the West Bengal Legislative Assembly bye-election contained conflicting information regarding the candidate's age and year of passing Class X, raising questions about the validity of the nomination.
The petition, heard by Justice Krishna Rao, centered on allegations that the candidate had declared her age as "60+ years" while also stating she completed Class X in 1965, a seemingly improbable scenario. The Congress argued that the Returning Officer failed in his duty under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by not exercising discretion to reject the nomination.
However, the High Court, in its judgment dated September 29, 2026, emphasized the non-maintainability of the writ petition under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. The court noted that once the scrutiny of nominations is concluded and the election process commences, judicial intervention in such matters is barred, leaving election petitions as the appropriate remedy.
Justice Rao highlighted that the alleged discrepancy, whether of a substantial character or not, requires evidence that cannot be adjudicated within the scope of writ jurisdiction, especially during an ongoing election process. The court further underscored that the principle of non-interference by the judiciary in electoral matters is essential to prevent interruptions and delays in the democratic process.
The High Court's decision aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court, which restricts judicial review during the pendency of election proceedings, except in cases facilitating the election's completion without obstruction. The judgment clarifies that any challenge to nomination acceptance must be pursued post-election through an election petition, as per Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
This ruling reinforces the legal framework governing electoral processes, ensuring that election-related disputes are addressed without disrupting the electoral schedule. The court's dismissal of the petition allows the election process to continue unhindered, with the petitioners retaining the option to file an election petition after the election concludes.
Bottom Line :
Election law - Challenge to acceptance of nomination on alleged discrepancy in candidate's Form 26 affidavit regarding age and year of passing Class X - Held, once scrutiny was over and election process had commenced, writ petition was not maintainable in view of Article 329(b) of Constitution - Question whether defect was of substantial character involved evidence and could be agitated only in election petition under Section 100 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
