Introduction

The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court, which stated that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a petition against the Returning Officer’s improper rejection of a nomination under Article 226.

Brief Facts

The appellant submitted nomination papers for the Madras Legislative Assembly election from the Namakkal Constituency in Salem District. On 28th November 1951, the Returning Officer scrutinized the nomination papers of various candidates and rejected the appellant’s nomination paper on specific grounds. Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to annul the Returning Officer’s decision and include the appellant’s name in the list of valid nominations.

The High Court dismissed the application, citing lack of jurisdiction due to Article 329(b) of the Constitution. In this appeal, the appellant contends that the High Court’s view is incorrect and that Article 329(b) does not affect the High Court’s jurisdiction in this instance.

The arguments challenging the High Court’s judgment included: 1) the discrepancy between the language of Article 329(b) itself or in conjunction with Part XV of the Constitution; and 2) potential anomalies arising from the High Court’s interpretation of Article 329(2).

The arguments supporting this interpretation were:

• “Election” in Article 329(2) refers to the polling result and final candidate selection.
• An election petition can only be filed post-declaration of polling results or election completion.
• Differences in language usage in Articles 324(1), 327, and 328 indicate distinct references to matters before and after polling results.
• The Returning Officer’s action in rejecting a nomination paper falls under Article 226 due to provisions in Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, subject to Article 327.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Question: Does the electoral law in India contemplate two avenues for challenging matters related to election proceedings – one during the process via the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 (with the ordinary court jurisdiction expressly excluded), and another post-completion through an election petition?

Court Analysis and Decision:

The Court analyzed the case referencing page 600 of the judgment in Sarvothama Rao v/s Municipal Council. The observations made regarding elections to Local Boards are applicable to legislative elections, emphasizing that in a democratic constitution, protracted or obstructed elections could lead to serious consequences. In England, Parliament has not provided immediate relief to aggrieved candidates, who must wait until after the election to challenge nomination paper rejections. The Court concluded that if the High Court’s interpretation of Article 329(b) is correct, concerns about hardship and inconvenience become irrelevant. The Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Written by – Harshit Tiwari

Unfold Law – Best law firm in Bangalore