IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
Hanumantha Rao Desaisetty, S/o. Ganapathi Rao Desaisetty – Petitioner
Versus
The Election Commission of India, Rep. by its Chief Election Officer and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.10137 Of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2024
(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 33A, 80, and 100 - Writ Petition questioning the acceptance of nomination papers - The court held that the Returning Officer's duty to scrutinize nominations is essential and any objections must be raised through an election petition post-election, as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution. (Paras 11, 12, 23)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked during ongoing election processes, and any challenge to nomination must be made after the election through appropriate legal channels. (Paras 11, 12, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of the 7th respondent's nomination for the 2024 Legislative Assembly Elections, alleging non-disclosure of a second wife and her properties.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Returning Officer acted within his jurisdiction and the objections raised were not sustainable at this stage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acceptance of the nomination could be questioned at this stage or only through an election petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that challenges to election processes must be made post-election, affirming the constitutional bar against pre-election judicial intervention.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(B. Krishna Mohan, J.)
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.7.
2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.6 n not rejecting the nomination of the 7th respondent to the 117-Nellore City Assembly Constituency in the ensuing 2024 Legislative Assembly Elections, for not furnishing the details of his second wife Smt. Ponguru Indira and her properties in Form-26 filed along with his nomination on the ground of suppression and misrepresentation of the material facts, pursuant to the Objection Petition filed by the petitioner dated 26.04.2024 along with the supporting documents and overruling the objections raised by the petitioner vide order dated 26.04.2024 in Rc.A.54/2024/RO.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7th respondent submitted Form-26 affidavit to be filed by the candidate along with the nomination paper before the Returning Officer for Election to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly 2024 from 117-Nellore City Assembly Constituency. In the column of the “name of the spouse” he only mentioned the first wife’s name Smt. Ponguru Ramadevi with PAN.No.ACSPP8838K, but he did not mention about his second wife and her assets in the list of particulars to be furnished in the said Form-26. In the lease deed dated 28.06.2008 it was clearly mentioned about the other wife of the 7th respondent as Ponguru Indira husband of Ponguru Narayana. The sale deed dated 30.10.2000 also stands in her name. The rectification deed dated 13.10.2022 also stands in her name. Thus some of the properties are also standing in her name who is said to be the second wife of the 7th respondent.
4. The Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads as under:-
(1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made there under, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33, also furnish the information as to whether:-
(i) He is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction;
(ii) He has been convicted of an offence [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8] and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.
(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form verifying the information specified in subsection (1).
(3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered.
5. The candidate shall deliver an affidavit sworn by him in a prescribed form verifying the information furnished in sub-section (1) of the said Section.
6. The Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with the Election Petition which reads as under:-
7. The Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads as under:-
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act[][
Ram Phal Kundu vs Kamal Sharma
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election Chief Commissioner, MANU/SC/0209/1977, (1978) 1 SCC 405
Election Commission of India v. Shivaji, MANU/SC/0379/1987, (1988) 1 SCC 277
Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (Election Commission Appointments)
Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India and Another
The court affirmed that challenges to election nominations must be made post-election through an election petition, as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
The right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the challenge to the rejection of nomination papers through a writ petition is not maintainable during the election process. The remedy of f....
A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge the rejection of a nomination form for a Gram Panchayat election, as Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution bars such a challenge.
The plenary powers of the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution to correct errors or deficiencies in the electoral process and the limitation of judicial intervention at ....
Writ courts cannot intervene in nomination rejections during electoral processes under Article 226; jurisdiction is limited unless significant administrative errors invalidate the election process.
The rejection of nomination papers constitutes an election dispute, resolvable only through an election petition as per statutory provisions, emphasizing judicial restraint in electoral matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the rejection of nomination papers is to fil....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.