Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J. L. ODEDRA, JJ.
Rameshbhai Shirmabhai Khant – Appellant
Versus
The Election Officer, Danta Taluka Panchayat Electrol Division And Mamalatdar & Anr. – Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5425,5427, 5431, 5442, 5490, 5514, 5501,5764, 5770, 5419, 5426 of 2026
Decided on : 24-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR CP CHAMPANERI (5920)
For the Respondent: MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w. MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR.
VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL.

High courts cannot exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to intervene in ongoing election processes regarding nomination rejections. The constitutional bar under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG mandates that such grievances be addressed exclusively through election petitions filed after the election process has concluded.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226, 243-O, 243-ZG; Local government laws - Provisions for election petitions - Judicial review of electoral matters - Constitutional bar on court interference.

(B) High Courts are precluded from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain challenges against the rejection of nomination papers once the electoral process has commenced, as such intervention would stall or interrupt the established election proceedings; the mandatory remedy for such grievances is the filing of an election petition following the conclusion of the electoral process (Paras 13, 14, 17, 22, 25-30).

Facts of the case:
Various candidates, whose nomination papers for elections to local self-governing bodies were rejected by returning officers, approached the Court via writ petitions. The petitioners alleged that the rejections were arbitrary and illegal, seeking orders to allow them to contest the elections.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the Constitution contains an explicit non-obstante bar prohibiting interference in elections once the formal process has begun. As the governing statutes provide a complete and efficacious mechanism for redress through election petitions after the polls, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the nomination stage is legally impermissible.

Issues: Whether the Court, through its writ jurisdiction, may adjudicate the validity of nomination rejections while the election process is ongoing without infringing upon constitutional bars.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional articles 243-O and 243-ZG unequivocally forbid courts from interrupting the electoral process; therefore, aggrieved candidates must rely exclusively on post-election statutory remedies to challenge nomination rejections.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of nomination rejections in local body elections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. maintainability of writ petitions challenging election process and nomination rejection. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. constitutional scope of judicial review versus bar under article 243-o and 243-zg. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. jurisdictional bar precludes writ petitions; election petition is the exclusive remedy. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. judicial intervention in election matters is strictly limited; precedents distinguished. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
6. formal dismissal of writ petitions with liberty for statutory remedies. (Para 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT :

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.

1. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the first batch of writ petitions were heard on 16th April 2026 and judgment was reserved. Subsequently, other petitions were filed and they were heard on 17th April, 20th April and also on 21st April and judgments were reserved on those days. Since common questions of law are involved, all of them are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners, in these bunch of petitions, were aspirants in the forthcoming elections scheduled to be held for various Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations and had filed their nominations for being elected either as members of the Panchayats or as Councilors of the Municipalities and Municipal Corporation.

3. However, the respective Returning Officers, on scrutinizing their nominations has proceeded to reject their nominations on various grounds and being aggrieved of these rejections, they are before this Court praying that the rejections of their nominations be set aside and they be permitted to contest the elections. In some of the petitions, the candidates whose objections to the nominations of other candidates have been overruled and the nomination papers have been accepted are also before this Court.

4. The reasons for rejection of the nominations of the petitioners or for acceptance of the rival’s nomination, for the sake of convenience, are classified with reference to Panchayat, Municipality and Municipal Corporations and are stated in a tabular column:

PANCHAYAT

SCA No	Name of the petitioner	Reason for Rejection of the nomination papers
5425 of 2026	Rameshbhai Shirmabhai Khant in relation to his candidature for the Danta Taluka Panchayat	The Respondent No. 2 (Suryaben Kapurji Chauhan) has signed at the place of proposer in the nomination form and hence counting it to be a technical mistake her form is accepted, and form of dummy candidate has been rejected.
5427 of 2026	Vansadiya Hemlataben Vipulsinh in relation to Samari Taluka Panchayat	In the residential address furnished by the petitioner being property no. 593, there was no water closet and/or basic amenity and hence there was no compliance of Section 30(1)(dd) of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 which disqualified her
5431 of 2026	Ritalben Laljibhai Gadadar in relation to Sivdivadar Taluka Panchayat	The petitioner, as on 13.04.2026, had not completed 21 years of age and was therefore, disqualified.
5442 of 2026	Kalpanaben Sureshbhai Mali in relation to Mitha Taluka Panchayat	As on 05.06.2021, the petitioner already had two children and as on 05.07.2024, a 3rd child had been born and hence she was disqualified under section 30(1) of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993.
5490 of 2026	Kalavatiben Maganbhai Tandel in relation to Valsad Jilla Panchayat	The petitioner had not submitted caste certificate at 11.00 A.M. when the nomination papers were scrutinised.
5514 of 2026	Priyankaben Ileshbhai Metaliya in relation to Limbdi Taluka Panchayat	The petitioner had three children and therefore she was disqualified under Section 30(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993
5501 of 2026	Mansinh Babaji Thakor in relation to Dehgam Taluka Panchayat	The certificate issued by the Police Inspector, Rakhiyal was incomplete in nature.
5764 of 2026	Sunitaben Bharatbh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 898

Cases Referred (3)