Court affirms Article 243-ZG constitutional bar, emphasizing remedy under Section 31 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 for election disputes
In a significant judgment delivered on September 9, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) clarified the legal route for challenging the rejection of nomination papers in municipal elections. The case arose when Kanhaiya Lal, the petitioner, contested the rejection of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer for the Ward No.35 election at the Nagar Palika Brij Nagar, District Deeg.
The petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that he was under trial for an offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding five years, a fact he allegedly did not disclose in his nomination form. Importantly, the petitioner challenged the rejection through a writ petition in the High Court, claiming violation of natural justice principles as no opportunity of hearing was provided prior to the rejection.
However, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed the writ petition, relying heavily on Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India. This constitutional provision bars courts from entertaining any election-related disputes except through the mechanism of an election petition as prescribed by the respective State Legislature. The judge noted that the rejection of nomination papers is an integral part of the election process and falls under the ambit of "election" as defined under the law.
The Court referred to Section 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which explicitly provides that improper rejection or acceptance of nomination papers is a ground to declare an election void, but such claims must be pursued via an election petition filed before a District Judge within one month from the date of election. The Court underscored that the legislature has placed improper rejection and improper acceptance of nomination papers on an equal footing regarding grounds for invalidating an election.
Additionally, the Court cited the Supreme Court ruling in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952), reinforcing that the entire electoral process, including nomination acceptance or rejection, can only be questioned by filing an election petition, not a writ petition.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent forum by filing an election petition under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. This direction aims to ensure adherence to the statutory framework established for election disputes while safeguarding the petitioner's right to seek appropriate remedy.
This judgment reinforces the strict procedural channel mandated by the Constitution and election laws for contesting electoral grievances and reiterates the limited scope of judicial intervention by High Courts in electoral matters.
Bottom Line:
Election laws - Improper rejection of nomination paper cannot be challenged through a writ petition in the High Court due to the statutory bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India. Remedy lies in filing an election petition under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, Section 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009
