Calcutta High Court Draws Line: No Mid-Poll Nomination Fixes Via Writs

In a swift move amid West Bengal's bustling election season, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition by independent candidate Arindam Ghosh , who challenged the acceptance of a Trinamool Congress (TMC) contender's nomination from the 117-Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency. Justice Krishna Rao ruled that disputes over nomination scrutiny fall under the election petition route post-polls, not high court intervention, preserving the electoral timeline.

As reported in local polls coverage, the court emphasized that "if any order is passed, the same will amount to interfere with the election process," aligning with broader directives to let polls proceed uninterrupted.

The Affidavit Slip-Up That Sparked a Nomination Battle

Arindam Ghosh, running as an independent from Rajarhat Gopalpur, filed objections against TMC's candidate (Respondent No. 10) during nomination scrutiny on April 8-9, 2026. His gripes centered on the candidate's affidavit: lacking a signature in the verification section and showing a date mismatch—April 8 in the text but April 7 on the notary seal.

Ghosh accused the Returning Officer (RO) of bypassing handbook rules (Clauses 6.6, 5.20.3, 6.10), failing to upload his counter-affidavit, deleting the flawed one without a reasoned order, and ignoring Supreme Court precedents like Resurgence India v. Election Commission (2014) 14 SCC 189, which mandates thorough affidavit checks for voter transparency.

The timeline was tight: Nomination filing, scrutiny, and uploads happened around April 7-9, 2026, with Ghosh present at proceedings but later crying foul in WPA 9346 of 2026 against Union of India, state authorities, and rivals.

Petitioner's Volley Meets Respondents' Counterpunch

Ghosh's team hammered procedural lapses: No summary inquiry under Clause 6.6, no rejection for unsigned affidavit per Clause 6.10 and Section 36(2)(c) RP Act, and violations of upload mandates in Clauses 5.20.3-4. They argued the RO's acceptance flouted voters' right to know.

The Election Commission (via ASGI Asok Kumar Chakrabarti) countered that Ghosh was present, voiced satisfaction, and left. The TMC candidate's agent fixed defects on the spot—re-submitting a signed affidavit, explaining the notary date as April 7 at her home—and the RO accepted it after scrutiny, deleting the initial upload per technical protocol.

Respondent No. 10's counsel, Sr. Adv. Joydeep Kar, invoked Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi (2026) 3 SCC 373 for leniency on minor defects, Section 36(2) RP Act (reject only substantial flaws), and Section 100(d)(i) (improper acceptance challengeable only via election petition). They cited Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 and Article 329(b) to bar writs once polls kick off, stressing no request for RO's reasons was made.

Judicial Lens: Precedents Seal the Writ's Fate

Justice Rao dissected the duel through RP Act prisms. Section 36 demands RO scrutiny but reserves deeper probes—like affidavit validity amid dual submissions (unsigned first, corrected second)—for trial evidence, not writ courts.

Ajmera Shyam loomed large: "Minor procedural errors or purely technical objections of inconsequential nature should not be allowed to override the mandate of the electorate." Article 329 and Section 100 channel remedies to election petitions, preventing judicial halts to "ongoing electoral process."

The RO's report noted petitioner satisfaction on-site, but no reasoned order was issued—still, writs can't preempt polls.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On Writ Limits : "Article 329 bar the Courts to interfere in electoral matters."
  • Technical vs. Substantial : Echoing Ajmera Shyam , courts must avoid "judicial victory based on technicalities rather than the electoral victory won in the electoral battlefield."
  • Remedy Roadmap : "The writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner if any occasion arises, the petitioner can raise all the points before the appropriate Court at the appropriate stage."
  • Process Integrity : "This is to be decided only during the trial not by the writ Court in the writ jurisdiction."

Polls Roll On, Petition Pivot Approved

The court disposed of WPA 9346 of 2026 without merits adjudication, granting Ghosh liberty to agitate in an election petition under Section 100 RP Act if needed. No interference mid-polls ensures constituencies elect promptly, sidelining "technical perfection" for voter will—unless fraud taints it.

This stance reinforces India's poll machinery: Writs yield to petitions post-results, potentially shaping how ROs handle affidavit hiccups in high-stakes races.