Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Patna High Court: In a set of two writ petitions filed by Sweta Suman, candidate from Rashtriya Janata Dal (“RJD”), and Rakesh Kumar Singh, candidate from Lok Janshakti Party (“LJP”), against the rejection of their nomination, in the upcoming Bihar Elections, the Single Judge Bench of A. Abhishek Reddy, J., dismissed the petitions, reiterating that when there was an alternative and effective statutory remedy of filing an election petition, the entertainment of the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution was not desirable. Especially, when there is a specific bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and a statutory remedy available under Sections 80 & Section 100(c) of the RP Act.
Background
The first petitioner, Sweta Suman, filed her nomination for contesting as an MLA candidate in the Legislative Assembly Elections (“Bihar Elections”) from RJD to be held on 11-11-2025 for the constituency Mohania, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (“SC”) candidates. She contended that since she belonged to the SC community, she had filed her nomination with the requisite documents, including her Caste Certificate. However, the Election Officer rejected her nomination, holding that her Caste Certificate might not be genuine as per the report of the Circle Officer, Durgawati. Aggrieved, she filed the present petition.
The second petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, a candidate from LJP, filed his nomination to contest as an MLA in the Bihar Elections for the constituency of Ghosi. He contended that his nomination was rejected on a whimsical and non-existent ground, and the copy of the rejection order was not served on him. Aggrieved, he filed the second petition.
Issue
Whether the present writ petitions can be entertained by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the specific bar enumerated in Article 329(b) and the statutory remedies available under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“RP Act”).
Analysis
Upon perusal of Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Sections 80 and 100(c) of the RP Act, the Court stated that clearly there is a bar for entertaining any writ petitions/ cases other than election petitions once the election process has begun. If any person is aggrieved, including rejection of the nomination, the only remedy available to the said person is to file an election petition after the election process is over. Sections 80 and 100(c) provide for filing an election petition even where the nomination of a person is rejected.
Admittedly, in the present case, the election process had begun, as the notification had been issued and the nominations had been called. The Court added that irrespective of the fact as to whether the rejection of the nomination is bad in law or has been passed arbitrarily, the same cannot be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the specific bar laid down in Article 329(b).
In this regard, the Court referred to several judgments, such as N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94, wherein it was held that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. The Court opined that under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question. Article 329(b) was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be urged. It follows by necessary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage, and before any other Court. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329(b) of the Constitution and in setting up a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal, which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. The Court also referred to the principles laid down in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that granting the direction to the Election Officer to accept the nomination of the petitioners and permit them to contest the election would amount to allowing the writ petitions without any counter affidavit being filed and bypassing the statutory remedies provided under the RP Act. Further, if any interim or final orders were passed at this stage, it would directly affect and delay the election process, which admittedly had already commenced.
The Court agreed and reiterated that when there is an alternative and effective statutory remedy of filing an election petition, the entertainment of the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution was not desirable. Especially, when there is a specific bar under Article 329(b) and a statutory remedy available under Sections 80 & Section 100(c) of the RP Act.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petitions, holding that they did not warrant any interference by the Court.
[Sweta Suman v. Election Commission of India, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17396 of 2025, decided on 03-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioners: Senior Advocate SBK Mangalam, Advocates Awnish Kumar, and Vikash Kumar Singh
For the respondents: Advocate General PK Shahi, Advocates Siddhartha Prasad, Sanjiv Kumar, and Bindhyachal Rai
Buy Constitution of India HERE
