Writ courts cannot intervene in nomination rejections during electoral processes under Article 226; jurisdiction is limited unless significant administrative errors invalidate the election process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith, and taken up for final hearing and disposal.

Factual Background:

2. This petition challenges the rejection of a nomination filed by the Petitioner to contest as a candidate in the forthcoming elections of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in ‘the 173 Chembur Constituency’. The nomination form and the supporting affidavit along with requisite documents are said to have been filed by the Petitioner, with deposit of the requisite fees, with the Returning Officer communicating the objections and deficiencies which needed to be rectified. Scrutiny was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on October 30, 2024.

3. According to the Petitioner, the Returning Officer did not allow the Petitioner to rectify the defects listed in the list of objections raised upon scrutiny thereof, which essentially was that the Petitioner had not been administered the oath. According to him, the non-administration of the oath was the only objection raised and this was not the fault of the Petitioner since he was available at the designated office for filing of nomination.

4. On October 30, 2024, the Petitioner contends, the nomination form of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the nomination form had not been signed by the proposer, although the name of the proposer had been stated in the form. The Petitioner states that he was under the bona fide belief that the name of the proposer ought to be mentioned and his signature was not a pre-condition. The Petitioner alleges that not having been given a reminder and not allowing him to rectify the defect at 11:00 a.m. on October 30, 2024, has resulted in injustice being meted out to him and it has vitiated the impartial administration of the electoral process.

5. According to the Petitioner, if two views are possible, a liberal view should be taken, and the Petitioner ought to have been allowed to rectify his defects. Consequently, the Petitioner’s case is that the Returning Officer had arbitrarily rejected the nomination and this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 ought to interfere and permit the Petitioner’s name to be included in the ballot paper since there is significant time before the actual conduct of the election scheduled for November 20, 2024.

Preliminary Objection:

6. When the matter was called out, Mr. Akshay Shinde, Learned Counsel for the Respondents and Mr. Himanshu Takke, the Learned AGP raised a preliminary objection to submit that no writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India can at all be entertained in connection with rejection of a nomination prior to the election. The only recourse for a candidate who is aggrieved by the rejection of a nomination would be to file an Election Petition subsequent to the conduct of the elections. Consequently, according to the Respondents, the Writ Court cannot even get into the facts of the case.

7. In support of the aforesaid contentions, they would submit that the law is clear right from the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors., [AIR 1952 SCC 64] (Ponnuswami) and thereafter in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., [(1978) 1 SCC 405] (MS Gill )., More importantly they submitted that a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade & 4 Ors. Vs. The State Election Commission & 9 Ors., Civil Writ Petition (St.) No. 26 of 2021 dated January 13, 2021 (Full Bench), which dealt with two writ petitions to reconcile conflicting views of earlier benches of this Court, had dealt with the law