Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20479 of 2014
Petitioner :- Shri Sher Singh
Respondent :- Election Commission Of India And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Tripathi,Shailendra Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Illegible
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
The petitioner, who had presented his nomination paper to the 
Collector/Returning Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar for contesting the 2014 
Lok Sabha Elections, is aggrieved by the order dated 25 March 2014 by 
which his nomination has been rejected. 
The reason assigned for rejecting the nomination is that the certified 
extract of the electoral rolls had not been submitted in the prescribed 
format despite opportunities having been granted to the petitioner. 
Article 329 (b) of the Constitution speaks as follows:
“(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.”
It is well settled that the entire process from the issuance of a 
notification under Section 14 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 to 
the declaration of the results under Section 66 is comprehended within the 
expression 'election' in Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Once the 
election process has begun, the interference of this Court under Article 226 2
of the Constitution is clearly not warranted. Moreover, under Section 100 
(1) (c), an improper rejection of a nomination is a ground on which the 
election of a returned candidate can be assailed. 
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami 
vs. Returning Officer and others1
 held that the jurisdiction of the High 
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked to 
question the election to either House of Parliament and the observations 
are as follows:-
“The law of elections in India does not 
contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters 
connected with election proceedings, one while they 
are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction 
of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution 
(the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been 
expressly excluded), and another after they have been 
completed by means of an election petition.”
This decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Manda 
Jaganath vs. K.S. Rathnam and others2
 and the observations of the 
Supreme Court are thus:-
“12. In our opinion, whether the Returning 
Officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted 
by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for 
the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ 
jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an 
aggrieved party in an election petition only. 
13. It is to be seen that under Article 329(b) of 
the Constitution of India there is a specific prohibition 
1 AIR 1952 SC 64
2 (2004) 7 SCC 4923
against any challenge to an election either to the 
Houses of Parliament or to the Houses of Legislature of 
the State except by an election petition presented to 
such authority and in such manner as may be provided 
for in a law made by the appropriate legislature. 
Parliament has by enacting the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 provided for such a forum for 
questioning such elections hence, under Article 329(b) 
no forum other than such forum constituted under the 
RP Act can entertain a complaint against any election.
14. The word “election” has been judicially 
defined by various authorities of this Court to mean any 
and every act taken by the competent authority after the 
publication of the election notification.
23. The next argument of learned counsel for the 
respondent is that as per the provisions of section 36 of 
the Representation of the People Act, Rule 4 of the 
Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and clause 13 of the 
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 
1968, the omissions found by the Returning Officer in 
Form B filed by the respondent herein are all curable 
irregularities and are not defects of substantial nature, 
calling for rejection of the nomination paper. We think 
these arguments based on the provisions of the statutes, 
rules and orders are all arguments which can be 
addressed in a properly constituted election petition, if 
need be, and cannot be a ground for setting aside the 
order of the Returning Officer which is prima facie just 
and proper, in our opinion.”
In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it will not 
be appropriate for this Court to entertain this petition filed under Article 4
226 of the Constitution. In fact, for these reasons, this Bench had declined 
to entertain a writ petition bearing no.19028 of 20143
 that had been filed to 
assail an order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper
We, therefore, decline to entertain this petition. The petition is, 
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.4.2014
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)
(Dilip Gupta, J.)

3 Hurr Mehd Baqri Vs. Chief Election Commission of India decided on 2 April 2014


Popular posts from this blog