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 the intermediate stage of the election.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioners are candidates who have submitted their nominations for contesting in Assembly Constituencies in the ensuing election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the rejection of their nominations.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7358/2021 submitted nomination for contesting in 013-Thalassery Assembly Constituency. The nomination was submitted at 01.15 p.m. on 19.03.2021, the last date prescribed. Along with nomination, duly filled up Form-A and Form-B were submitted. However, Form-A submitted at 01.15 p.m. did not contain signature of National President of the political party. When the defect was noted, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 request seeking one hour time to clear the mistake. According to the petitioner, the Returning Officer did not grant time. On 20.03.2021, the date of scrutiny of nominations, the petitioner produced Form-A (Ext.P5) duly signed by the National President of the political party, along with Ext.P6 affidavit.

3. After scrutiny, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination observing as follows:-

“Since Form-A has not been submitted in required format in due time (3 p.m. of 19.03.2021), we scrutinised the nomination as that of an independent candidate but since it is not supported by 10 proposers, this nomination form is rejected.”

On the same day, the Returning Officer returned to the petitioner a copy of the duly signed Form-A, as per Ext.P8.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7359/2021 submitted nomination for contesting in 063-Guruvayur Assembly Constituency on 19.03.2021 at 2.42 p.m. Among the documents submitted, Form-A and Form-B were unfilled. However, at 2.59 p.m., the petitioner submitted Form-A and Form-B. Form-A so submitted was duly signed by National President of the Party. But, Form-B did not contain the signature of the Authorised State President of the Party. In this case also, on 20.03.2021, the date of scrutiny, the petitioner submitted Form-B duly signed by the State President. However, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination observing that as per the Hand-book of the Election Commission, it should have been submitted on 19.03.2021. The petitioner is challenging rejection of his nomination.

5. W.P.(C) No.7369/2021 is filed by a candidate who submitted nomination to 127-Varkala Assembly Constituency. The petitioner filed nomination for election to the general seat on 19.03.2021. She submitted nomination as a candidate of a political party with the official election symbol. Her nomination was rejected on the ground that the Part Number of one among the proposers in the nomination paper, is not in the final voters list. According to the petitioner, the Part Number was properly and clearly written in the old voters list. The rejection of her nomination paper on super technical grounds, is illegal and unsustainable.

6. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7371/2021 wanted to contest in 85-Piravom Constituency and submitted his nomination on 19.03.2021, as candidate of a political party. When the petitioner submitted his nomination, certain defects were noted and the petitioner was given time to produce Form-A and Form-B at the latest by 20.03.2021. According to the petitioner, before the petitioner could submit the Forms on 20.03.2021, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that for a valid nomination, i.e., for a registered unrecognised party, 10 proposers are needed.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing in W.P.(C) No.7358/2021 contended that in the matter of scrutiny of nomination, there is total non-compliance of Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The additional 4th respondent did not evaluate the defect in Form-A in a transparent and open manner. The additional 4th respondent should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect. The order of the Returning Officer interferes with the free flow of election and hinders the progress of the election, contend