Writ challenge to nomination acceptance barred by Article 329(b); remedy via election petition only.

..Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Nomination Affidavit dated 06.04.2026 and its decision of acceptance passed by the 4th Respondent/Returning Officer with respect of Salem West (Constituency No.88) Constituency for Tamil Nadu Assembly Election -2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Representation of People Act, 1951 and consequently prayed that directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents for staying the operation of the impugned Nomination and decision for contesting the 4th Respondent in Salem -West (Constituency No.88) Tamil Nadu State Assembly Election.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mariselvam For Respondents : Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan for R1 & R3 Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, Standing Counsel – for R2 Mr.M.R.Jothimanian – for R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Nomination Affidavit dated 06.04.2026 and its decision of acceptance passed by the 4th Respondent/Returning Officer with respect of Salem West (Constituency No.88) Constituency for Tamil Nadu Assembly Election -2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Representation of People Act, 1951 and consequently prayed that directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents for staying the operation of the impugned Nomination and decision for contesting the 4th Respondent in Salem -West (Constituency No.88) Tamil Nadu State Assembly Election.

2. The prayer made in this petition is not maintainable in the light of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India which provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for or by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature.

3. In Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, grounds for declaring election to be void have been set out, which can be raised only by way of election petition.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant , (2014) 14 SCC 162, has held in paragraph 38 as under:

“38. When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the returning officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not suffice. Present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same time, it would not be possible for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification about the allegations made by the objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of non-disclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not contain complete information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the Election Commission, right argued that such an enquiry can be only at a later stage and the appropriate stage would be in an election petition as in the instant case, when the election is challenged. The grounds stated inSection 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis the Returning Officer wo