Disqualification for elections must be assessed at the date of scrutiny, not at nomination filing. A candidate's timely rectification of arrears allows participation, emphasizing the importance of broad electoral access.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction quashing the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure A).

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent No.1 to declare the Petitioner as a valid candidate for the purpose of contesting the elections of the Respondent No.2 Association and carry on the Election process of the Petitioner in terms of the duly published Election Calendar.

c) Declare that the provisions of clause 3B(D) (b) are not applicable to individuals contesting the election for the post of office bearers in accordance with rule 6(A) (i) with its proviso.

d) Issue such other Writs, Directions or Orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner claims to be the president of M/s Deccan Herald and Prajavani Sports Club for more than two decades. He also claims to be a philanthropist and avid sportsman, past president of the Karnataka Olympics Association and Trustee of M/s.Netkalappa Centre for Sports.

3. The Petitioner filed his nomination for the post of President of the respondent No.2-Karnataka State Cricket Association (for short hereinafter referred to as “KSCA”). His nomination was scrutinised on 24.11.2025, when it was rejected on the ground that M/s Deccan Herald and Prajavani Sports Club, which is an Institutional Member of the KSCA, was in arrears to the KSCA. It is in that background that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri.S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that;

4.1. At the time when the nomination papers of the Petitioner was taken up for scrutiny, there were no arrears even though when at the time of submitting the nomination papers there were arrears, the said arrears had been paid at 3.06 pm before the nomination was taken up for scrutiny at 5:30 pm and as such, there being no arrears at that particular point of time, the nomination Form of the Petitioner could not have been rejected on account of there being arrears.

4.2. In this regard he relies upon Rule 3B(D)(b), which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

3B GENERAL PROVISIONS ON MEMBERS/ASSOCIATES:

(D) ARREARS:

(b) In case of a Life Member whose any payment of more than Rs.100/- is in arrears and a Founder Institutional member whose subscription or payment of more than Rs.100/- is in arrears, such Life members or Founder Institutional Members shall not be allowed to attend/contest or vote at any meeting or be allowed to enjoy the privileges of the Association as long as they are in arrears.

4.3. His submission is that in case of a life member whose any payment of more than Rs.100/- is in arrears and the founder Institutional Member, whose subscription or payment of more than Rs.100/- is in arrears, such life member or founder Institutional Member shall not be allowed to attend/contest or vote at any meeting or be allowed to enjoy the privileges of the Association as long as they are in arrears, would only mean that the embargo thereunder is as long as they are in arrears and if arrears had been paid, the embargo under Rule 3B(D)(b) would not apply, hence the embargo for contesting would be only so long as they are in arrears would not apply to the Petitioner, who has made payment of the arrears prior to the scrutiny.

4.4. The embargo under Rule 3B(D)(b) is not a disqualification, there being a separate provision for disqualification under By-law (6). Bylaw (6) not having any disqualification insofar as arrears are concerned. Thus, the nomination form could not have been rejected on the grounds of disquali