Supreme Court: In a writ petition arising out Returning Officer’s order dated 9 June 2026, which rejected the nomination of petitioner, a candidate of the Indian National Congress (INC), for a Rajya Sabha seat from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the biennial Rajya Sabha elections, ground that she had failed to disclose a pending criminal case in the affidavit filed along with her nomination papers in Form 26, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., refused to entertain the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, holding that
-
Article 329(b) expressly bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process.
-
Rejection of a nomination paper forms part of the election process.
-
Any challenge to such rejection must be raised through an election petition after completion of the election.
-
The constitutional bar operates irrespective of the petitioner’s allegation that the rejection is manifestly illegal.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner filed her nomination for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh. Along with the nomination, she submitted the affidavit prescribed under Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The Returning Officer rejected her nomination after finding out that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and that this fact had not been disclosed in the affidavit.
The petitioner disputed the legality of the rejection and stated that the criminal proceedings had not reached the stage contemplated by Section 33-A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Representation of the People Act). It was contended that neither the charges had been framed nor the statutory conditions requiring disclosure had been satisfied. Therefore, the rejection of her nomination was arbitrary and contrary to law.
Also Read: Elections 2026: ECI Calls for Responsible Use of Social Media and AI Tools
Issues for Determination
-
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable against the rejection of a nomination paper during the pendency of the election process.
-
Whether Article 329(b) bars judicial interference at the stage of nomination scrutiny.
-
Whether the Court should examine the legality of the Returning Officer’s decision before completion of the election.
Also Read: Bombay HC Lays Down Test for Rejection of Election Petitions
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Article 329(b) of the Constitution: Article 329(b) provides that no election to Parliament or a State Legislature shall be called in question except through an election petition presented in the manner prescribed by law. The provision begins with the words “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,” thereby giving it overriding effect.
Section 33-A, Representation of the People Act: Section 33-A requires a candidate to disclose:
-
Whether he or she is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which charges have been framed by a competent court; and
-
Whether he or she has been convicted and sentenced in specified circumstances.
The provision also requires the filing of an affidavit verifying such information.
Rule 4-A, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form 26: Rule 4-A mandates submission of Form 26. Clause (5) of Form 26 requires disclosure regarding pending criminal cases. The format requires details such as FIR number, case number, court details, relevant statutory provisions, description of offence, whether charges have been framed, the date of framing of charges, and details regarding any appeal or revision.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court observed that the primary question was not whether the Returning Officer was correct on merits, but whether the constitutional bar permitted judicial scrutiny at that stage. Therefore, the question of maintainability had to be examined before considering the correctness of the Returning Officer’s decision. For that purpose, it undertook a detailed examination of Article 329(b) and the principles laid down in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94.
The Court noted that Article 329 begins with the phrase “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,” indicating the constitutional intent to exclude judicial intervention in electoral matters except in the manner specifically provided.
The Court noted that Ponnuswami remains the foundational authority governing election disputes. The following principles flows from Ponnuswami:
-
The word “election” is not confined to the final declaration of results. In its wider sense, it includes the entire electoral process culminating in the declaration of a candidate as elected. Thus, scrutiny and rejection of nominations form part of the election process itself.
-
Improper rejection of a nomination paper is a ground for challenging an election. However, such challenge must be raised through an election petition after completion of the election.
-
Election disputes should not interrupt the electoral process. Any matter having the potential to vitiate an election must be brought before the special forum created by election law and not before constitutional courts during the election process.
-
The Representation of the People Act is as a comprehensive and self-contained enactment dealing with all stages of elections, including election disputes. The statutory framework provides a complete mechanism for challenging electoral irregularities.
-
Elections must be concluded according to schedule and that controversies should be postponed until after completion of the election. Allowing pre-election litigation would disrupt electoral timelines and create uncertainty.
The Court held that in all election related disputes and whenever an attempt was made to invoke this Court’s or the High Court’s writ jurisdiction to interject during the process of conduct of election, the Constitutional Court had rejected such an attempt in light of principle contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.
The Court referred to Poonam v. Dule Singh, (2026) 3 SCC 732, a petition challenging removal from the post of Councillor at Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon on failure to disclose a conviction under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) in nomination papers, held that “every candidate contesting elections is required to furnish information as prescribed in the format under Rule 24-A(5), Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994”.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Court should intervene because the illegality in the rejection of the nomination was glaring and manifest. According to the Court, Article 329 contains no such distinction. It held that creating a distinction between cases involving “glaring” illegality and ordinary cases would amount to introducing an exception not found in Article 329. Such an approach would permit courts to selectively entertain some challenges while relegating others to election petitions, thereby undermining the certainty and uniformity established by Ponnuswami.
Decision
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the express constitutional bar contained in Article 329(b). The challenge to rejection of a nomination paper constitutes an election dispute which must be raised through an election petition after completion of the election process. Accordingly, the Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 and dismissed it.
The Court clarified that its observations concerning the basis of rejection of the nomination were made only for understanding the facts and deciding the question of maintainability. It expressly stated that nothing contained in the order would affect any election petition that may subsequently be filed by the petitioner or any other person. Any such election petition would be decided independently on its own merits and in accordance with law.
[Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1133]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.*, Mr. Randeep Singh S, Adv., Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Adv., Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv., Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv., Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.*, Mr. Sanket Gupta, Adv., Mr. C. Siddharth Sarang, AOR, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Vats, Adv., Mr. D.S. Naidu, Sr. Adv.*, Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR, Mr. Ashish Shukla, Adv., Ms. Simran Parmar, Adv., Ms. Soumya Goswami, Adv., Counsel for the Parties
