The right to contest elections is not guaranteed by mere inclusion in the voters' list; election disputes under the Waqf Act must be adjudicated by the Waqf Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

(J. NISHA BANU, J.)

Challenging the order passed by the Writ Court dated 27.02.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.204 of 2025, the writ petitioner, as appellant, has filed the present Writ Appeal.

2. The appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 29.12.2024, wherein the third respondent declared respondents 6 to 19 as the winning candidates.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:

3.1. On 21.02.2024, the third respondent issued Election Notification No.1, publishing a draft voters’ list and calling for objections. Objections were submitted on 18.03.2024. However, without considering those objections, the third respondent issued another Election Notification No.4 on 09.08.2024 and scheduled the date of election, fixing the date for filing nominations on 13.08.2024.

3.2. Aggrieved by the same, Abdul Kani and Mohammed Ali filed Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.19317 and 19582 of 2024 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. By a common order dated 14.08.2024, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petitions, directing that all objections be considered and a fresh electoral list be published before proceeding with the election.

3.3. Pursuant to the said order, the third respondent issued a revised voters’ list, adding 190 new voters, including the appellant. The appellant’s name, along with his father's name and address, was listed at Serial No.1187. However, without affording an opportunity to the newly added voters to file their nominations, the third respondent issued Election Notification No.13 on 23.12.2024, scheduling the election on 29.12.2024.

3.4. The appellant submitted his objection to the publication of the election notification to the respondents 3 and 4, but no action was taken. The election was conducted on 29.12.2024 and the third respondent issued the impugned order on the same date, declaring the respondents 6 to 19 as the winning candidates. The appellant contends that the process was arbitrary and illegal.

4. The Writ Court, after considering the materials on record and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum [ 2010 (14) SCC 588 ], dismissed the Writ Petition, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Waqf Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appellant’s case on its merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal.

5. The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant are as follows:

5.1. The appellant, including 190 newly added members, were not given an opportunity to file their nominations, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of a fair election. This denial violates the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, thereby justifying judicial intervention. The appellant was denied the right to vote due to improper preparation of the voters’ list.

5. Initially, the official respondents objected to the appellant’s eligibility, claiming he was neither a member nor a voter of the Jamath. However, the appellant later produced documentary evidence, including subscription receipts, payment records, and a family card, establishing his Jamath membership and nativity to Arampannai Village. Furthermore, the official respondents did not dispute his e