Back
Dismisses Plea Over Age Discrepancy in Candidate Hasirani Rath's Affidavit
The on dismissed a writ petition filed by the challenging the acceptance of candidate Hasirani Rath's nomination for the Nandigram by-election, holding that any at this stage would directly affect the ongoing election process.
Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over the single bench, ruled that the alleged discrepancy in Rath's —where she declared her age as "60+ years" while also stating that she passed Class X in —could not be examined in during the pendency of elections. The Court clarified that the issue could instead be raised through an after the polls.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose when Rath, the candidate for the by-election to the 210-Nandigram Assembly Constituency, submitted her nomination on . In her accompanying affidavit under Form 26, she listed her age as "60+ years" and her highest educational qualification as Class X from Chowkhali Ganga Pada Milan Kanya Vidyapith (H.S.), completed in .
The Congress party, through its state unit and petitioner Mita Chakravarty, argued that these two declarations were facially impossible—if Rath was 60 years old in , she would have been born around 1966, making it impossible to have passed Class X in . The petitioners contended that this constituted a , which the Returning Officer ought to have examined and rejected under .
Notably, no objection was raised during the on . A complaint from one Subrata Mahapatra was submitted only on —after the scrutiny process was completed and the nomination accepted.
Arguments Before the Court
, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Returning Officer had failed in his constitutional duty by not invoking his power under Section 36(2) to reject a nomination containing an apparent false declaration. He argued that the discrepancy directly affected the electorate's fundamental right to know under and relied on precedents including Resurgence India v. (2014) and Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (2017) to argue that incomplete or false information constitutes a .
The , represented by , countered that the scrutiny was completed on without any objection. It argued that the alleged discrepancy did not amount to a and that any challenge to the acceptance of nomination must be raised through an under , which specifically covers .
, representing the Chief Electoral Officer, submitted that as per the Handbook for Returning Officers, a nomination cannot be rejected merely on allegations of false information if the prescribed affidavit has been filed. He further argued that the grounds raised did not fall under any disqualification under or .
, appearing for Hasirani Rath, emphasized that the alleged defect was a matter of evidence that could not be decided in . He pointed out that the petitioners had not been present during scrutiny and that the complaint was made after the deadline. He also cited the 's recent decision in Meenakshi Natarajan v. () to argue that Article 329(b) bars during the election process.
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Krishna Rao examined the scope of and noted that the Returning Officer has the power to reject nominations on specified grounds, but only after scrutiny. However, the Court found that the election schedule had already progressed: scrutiny was completed on , and polling was set for .
Relying heavily on the 's decision in v. Ashok Kumar (2000), the Court reiterated that during the election process should be avoided if it would interrupt, obstruct, or protract the proceedings. The Court observed:
"If at this stage, this Court will decide the issue raised by the petitioner No. 2 with regard to the nomination papers of the respondent no. 5, the same will directly affects the present election process."
The Court further held that whether the discrepancy constituted a
was a matter of evidence, not something to be determined in
.
"The defects in the affidavit submitted by the respondent no.5 are substantial character or not are the matter of evidence,"
the judgment stated.
Additional Context from Other Sources
During the hearing, it emerged that Rath is the mother of Chandranath Rath, a close aide of former Nandigram MLA Suvendu Adhikari, who vacated the seat after winning both Nandigram and Bhabanipur in the Assembly elections. The later clarified that the "" entry was a typographical error—Rath actually passed Class X in . This fact, however, was not part of the formal record before the Court.
Decision and Implications
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Krishna Rao made it clear that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioners from raising the issue in an after the election is concluded. The Court stated:
"However, dismissal of writ petition will not prevent the petitioners to agitate the issue in an at an appropriate stage."
The ruling underscores the strict judicial policy of in election processes while they are underway, as mandated by . It also reaffirms that challenges to nomination acceptance on grounds of alleged false affidavits must be pursued through the post-election remedy of an , where full evidence can be adduced.
The by-election for Nandigram is scheduled for , with counting on .
