Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
N.Vigneshwaran – Appellant
Versus
Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) – Respondent
WP No.15992 of 2026|WMP No.17243 of 2026
For Petitioner: No appearance
For Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
Election affidavit disputes not maintainable via writ; must be challenged through election petition under Article 329(b).
Headnote:The petition under Article 226 seeks a writ of mandamus directing verification of financial disclosures and statutory filings in election affidavits. Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars questioning elections except by election petition, as provided under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court finds the writ unmaintainable, relying on Supreme Court precedent holding that challenges to affidavit disclosures must be via election petition. The sole issue is maintainability of the writ petition challenging election affidavit disclosures. The ratio decidendi, drawn from Supreme Court judgment, states that returning officers cannot conduct detailed verification pre-election; non-disclosure or false information grounds for invalidating election are examinable only in election petitions, deferring nomination scrutiny to that stage. The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks verification of election affidavit disclosures. (Para 1) |
| 2. article 329(b) bars writs; challenges via election petition. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. supreme court: affidavit issues deferred to election petitions. (Para 5) |
| 4. writ dismissed; remedies available under law. (Para 6) |
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents 3 and 4 to verify into the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings of 5th respondent, made in his election affidavits filed before 4th respondent.
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 in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the nomination. Likewise, where the blanks are left in an affidavit, nomination can be rejected there and then. In other cases where detailed enquiry is needed, it would depend upon the outcome thereof, in an election petition, as to whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance. Once it is found that it was a case of improper acceptance, as there was misinformation or suppression of material information, one can state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a later date. When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void. Otherwise, it would be an anomalous situation that even when criminal proceedings under Section 125A of the Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be countenanced.”
5. The Apex Court, in the judgment supra, has held that when an information is given by a candidate in an affidavit 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 co
