Writ petition challenging nomination rejection not maintainable due to Article 329(b) bar; remedy lies via election petition.

Calling into question the rejection order dated 07.04.2026, by which the nomination filed by the petitioner was rejected, the present writ petition is filed. A further direction is sought to include the name of the petitioner in the list of valid candidates for the General Election scheduled on 23.04.2026.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of nomination of the petitioner was on the ground that as the petitioner is working as Superintendent of the District Library, Theni, it falls under the “office of profit” and therefore, in view of the disqualification provided under Articles 102(1) and 191(1) of the Constitution of India, the nomination has been rejected. He further submitted that the impugned rejection of nomination is beyond the powers of the Returning Officer, where his power is restricted to verify only the qualifications as prescribed under Article 173 of the . It is his further contention that since the petitioner is employed under Local Library Authority, which is a body corporate constituted under the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act, 1948 , it cannot be construed as an office of profit under the State Government and therefore, the rejection of nomination by the 3^rd respondent is unconstitutional.

2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even during parliamentary election in the year 2024, he had filed W.P. (MD)No.8690 of 2024, but, however, due to want of time as polling by postal ballot had already commenced, the petition was dismissed by relegating the petitioner to file an election petition.

2.3. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000) 8 SCC 216; and (ii)

Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawantand others,(2014) 14 SCC 162 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner even as per his nomination is serving as Superintendent of District Library, Theni, in view of his disqualification, as he is under office of profit, the nomination has been directly rejected. He further submitted that a writ petition challenging the alleged improper rejection of nomination papers is not maintainable, as the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters stands excluded by Article 329 of theConstitution of India. To fortify the said plea, reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court inN.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituencyand others, (1952) 1 SCC 94

4. It is apposite to refer to the following provisions:

“Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India:

329. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.-

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution—

(a) ...

(b) 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 by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.”

“Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High court is of opinion—

(a) or (b) ...; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected...”

5. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on interpreting the provisions of the Constitution of India and Representation of the People Act, 1951, in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others held thus:

“20. It was argued that since the Representation of the People Act was enacted subject to the provisions of the Constitution, it cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. This argument however is co