IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5763 of 2026 ==========================================================

SARASVATIBEN HASMUKHBHAI BHALIYA Versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HRIDAY BUCH for MR DHRUVIK K PATEL(7769) for the Petitioner AISHVARYA(8018) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 23/04/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The writ petition challenges the acceptance of the defective nomination form of respondent No.4.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that this acceptance of the defective nomination form of respondent No.4 was incorrect and since the form was defective, as the same been rejected, the petitioner being the only remaining candidate would have been elected unopposed.

3. The basis for this argument is that the scanned copy of the affidavit which was uploaded on the portal indicates that there was no signature of respondent No.4. It is therefore, contended that acceptance of such an affidavit was improper and the nomination paper ought to have been rejected.

4. The returning officer, who was present in the court yesterday and was given time to file an affidavit, has filed an affidavit in which he has explained the discrepancy in the following manner:

“5.5. On 11.04.2026, being the last date fixed for the filing of nomination papers, 32 candidates filed their nominations between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. On account of the large number of candidates presenting themselves simultaneously, there was considerable crowd and confusion prevailing throughout the said period. In the chaos so prevailing, many candidates, instead of approaching the Returning Officer directly, approached the team of subordinate officers stationed in the room. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that Respondent No. 4 came to submit her nomination paper and, instead of approaching the deponent, directly approached the team of subordinate officers. Respondent No. 4 submitted her documents at that point, including the affidavit in Form 4, which was scanned at the time of such submission.

5.6. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 approached the deponent for the purpose of submitting her nomination paper. In accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission and in discharge of the deponent's duty to carry out a prima facie examination of the affidavit to be delivered along with the nomination paper, the deponent examined the affidavit so filed and brought it to the attention of Respondent No. 4 that she had not affixed her signatures to the affidavit as well as to the verification portion thereof, as required under the Panchayats Election Rules. Upon being so informed, Respondent No. 4 took her nomination paper and thereafter, submitted the same along with the said affidavit, duly signed, at 12:54 pm (approximately 30 to 45 minutes later). It is pertinent to state that due to inadvertence, the duly signed affidavit as submitted by Respondent No. 4 could not be subsequently scanned and uploaded, and as a consequence, the unsigned affidavit, which had been scanned at the time of the initial submission, remained uploaded on the portal as on 11.04.2026. Copy of the nomination form along with the duly signed affidavit of Respondent No. 4 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R3.”

5. A reading of this affidavit would indicate that respondent No.4 had submitted the nomination papers to the Assistant Revenue Officer directly even before the same was examined by the returning officer and this uploaded affidavit, which did not contain the signature, when shown to the returning officer, the returning officer advised her that there is a defect in the nomination papers and she thereafter took back the nomination form