An independent candidate sought acceptance of his rejected parliamentary election nomination and permission to contest. The Court held the writ petition not maintainable under the bar on judicial interference in electoral matters and dismissed it. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.10168 of 2019 W.M.P.No.10730 of 2019
V.M.Arumugam .. Petitioner
v.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent herein to accept his election nomination form pertaining to No.5, Sriperumbudur (General) Parliamentary constituency in Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu and permit him to contest in the above said election to be held on 18.4.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Arumugam (Party-in-Person)
For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/S.G.R.Asssociates
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.)
V.M.Arumugam/party-in-person, claiming himself to be an independent candidate, has filed nomination papers to contest in Sriperumbudur constituency on 26.03.2019. Petitioner/Party-in-Person has contended that the Returning Officer of the above constituency, received his nomination papers, but rejected thereafter, on the ground that out of 10 names of proposers, the last one was having some small error.
4. Petitioner/Party-in-person made submissions.
"329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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."
filled up properly, in columns 3, 5(i)(ii) and 6(i)(ii) and the petitioner has not produced a fresh affidavit in time, before the commencement of the scrutiny, as stipulated in the Representation of People's Act 1951 and therefore, petitioner's nomination was rejected, as invalid, by the Returning Office.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
"4.The first argument which turns on the construction of Article 329(b) requires serious consideration, but I think the second argument can be disposed of briefly at the outset. It should be stated that what the appellant chooses to call anomaly can be more appropriately described as hardship or prejudice and what their nature will be has been stated in forceful language by Wallace, J. in Sarvothama Rao v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet [(1924) ILR 47 Mad 585 at 600] in these words:
“I am quite clear that any post-election remedy is wholly inadequate to afford the relief which the petitioner seeks, namely, that this election, now published, be stayed, until it can be held with himself as a candidate. It is no consolation to tell him that he can stand for some other election. It is no remedy to tell him that he must let the election go on and then have it set aside by petition and have a fresh election ordered. The fresh election may be under altogether different conditions and may bring forward an array of fresh candidates. The petitioner can only have his proper relief if the proposed election without him is stayed until his rejected nomination is restored, and hence an injunction staying this election was absolutely necessary, unless the relief asked for was to be denied him altogether in limine. In most cases of this kind no doubt there will be difficulty for the aggrieved party to get in his suit in time before the threatened wrong is committed; but when he has succeeded in so doing, the court cannot stultify https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ itself by allowing the wrong which it is asked to prevent
to be actually consummated while it is engaged in trying the suit.”
These observations however represent only one side of the picture and the same learned Judge presented the other side of the picture in a subsequent case (Desi Chettiar v.Chinnasami Chettiar) [(1928) AIR Mad 1271 at 1272] in the following passage:
“The petitioner is not without his remedy. His remedy lies in an election petition which we understand he has already put in. It is argued for him that that remedy which merely allows him to have set aside an election once held is not as efficacious as the one which would enable him to stop the election altogether; and certain observations at p. 600 of Sarvothama Rao v.Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet [(1924) ILR 47 Mad 585 at 600] are quoted. In the first place, we do not see how the mere fact that the petitioner cannot get the election stopped and has his remedy only after it is over by an election petition, will in itself confer on him any right to obtain a writ. In the second place, these observations were directed to the consideration of the propriety of an injunction in a civil suit, a matter with which we are not here concerned. And finally it may be observed that these remarks were made some years ago when the practice of individuals coming forward to stop elections in order that their own individual interest may be safeguarded was not so common. It is clear that there is another side of the question to be considered, namely, the inconvenience to the public administration of having elections and the business of local Boards held up while individuals prosecute their individual grievances. We understand the election for the elective seats in this Union has been held up since 31st May because of this petition, the result being that the electors have been unable since then to have any representation on the Board, and the Board is functioning, if indeed it is functioning, with a mere nominated fraction of its total strength; and this state of affairs the petitioner proposes to have continued until his own personal grievance is satisfied.”
These observations which were made in regard to elections to local Boards will apply with greater force to elections to legislatures, because it does not require much argument to show that in a country with a democratic Constitution in which the legislatures have to play a very important role, it will lead to serious consequences if the elections are unduly protracted or obstructed. To this aspect of the matter I shall have to advert later, but it is sufficient for the present purpose to state firstly that in England the hardship and inconvenience which may be suffered by an individual candidate has not been regarded as of sufficient weight to induce Parliament to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ make provision for immediate relief and the aggrieved
candidate has to wait until after the election to challenge the validity of the rejection of his nomination paper, and secondly, that the question of hardship or inconvenience is after all only a secondary question, because if the construction put by the High Court on Article 329(b) of the Constitution is found to be correct, the fact that such construction will lead to hardship and inconvenience becomes irrelevant.
“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution—
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;
(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.”
In construing this Article, reference was made by both parties in the course of their arguments to the other Articles in the same Part, namely, Articles 324, 325, 326, 327 and 328. Article 324 provides for the constitution and appointment of an Election Commissioner to superintend, direct and control elections to the legislatures; Article 325 prohibits discrimination against electors on the ground of religion, race, caste or sex; Article 326 provides for adult suffrage; Article 327 empowers Parliament to pass laws making provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the legislatures, subject to the provisions of the Constitution; and Article 328 is a complementary article giving power to the State Legislature to make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the State Legislature. A notable difference in the language used in Articles 327 and 328 on the one hand, and Article 329 on the other, is that while the first two articles begin with the words “subject to the provisions of this Constitution”, the last article begins with the words “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”. It was conceded at the bar that the effect of this difference in language is that whereas any law made by Parliament under Article 327, or by the State Legislatures under Article 328, cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, that jurisdiction is excluded in regard to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matters provided for in Article 329.
“(1) That the word ‘election’ as used in Article 329 (b) means what it normally and etymologically means, namely, the result of polling or the final selection of a candidate;
(2) That the fact that an election petition can be filed only after polling is over or after a candidate is declared elected, and what is normally called in question by such petition is the final result, bears out the contention that the word “election” can have no other meaning in Article 329(b) than the result of polling or the final selection of a candidate;
(3) That the words “arising out of or in connection with” which are used in Article 324(1) and the words “with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with” which are used in Articles 327 and 328, show that the framers of the Constitution knew that it was necessary to use different language when referring respectively to matters which happen prior to and after the result of polling, and if they had intended to include the rejection of a nomination paper within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Article 329(b) they would have used similar language in that article; and
(4) That the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting a nomination paper can be questioned before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following reason: Scrutiny of nomination papers and their rejection are provided for in Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Parliament has made this provision in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 327 of the Constitution which is “subject to the provisions of the Constitution”. Therefore, the action of the Returning Officer is subject to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.”
institutions, acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. In Srinivasalu v. Kuppuswami [(1928) AIR Mad 253 at 255] , the learned Judges of the Madras High Court after examining the question, expressed the opinion that the term “election” may be taken to embrace the whole procedure whereby an “elected member” is returned, whether or not it be found necessary to take a poll. With this view, my brother, Mahajan, J. expressed his agreement in Sat Narain v. Hanuman Prasad [(1945) AIR Lah. 85] ; and I also find myself in agreement with it. It seems to me that the word “election” has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the legislature. The use of the expression “conduct of elections” in Article 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be read consistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Article 329(b). That the word “election” bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins. The subject is dealt with quite concisely in Halsbury Laws of England in the following passage [ See page 237 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn. Vol. 12] under the heading Commencement of the Election”:
“Although the first formal step in every election is the issue of the writ, the election is considered for some purposes to begin at an earlier date. It is a question of fact in each case when an election begins in such a way as to make the parties concerned responsible for breaches of election law, the test being whether the contest is ‘reasonably imminent’. Neither the issue of the writ nor the publication of the notice of election can be looked to as fixing the date when an election begins from this point of view. Nor, again, does the nomination day afford any criterion. The election will usually begin at least earlier than the issue of the writ. The question when the election begins must be carefully distinguished from that as to when ‘the conduct and management of’ an election may be said to begin. Again, the question as to when a particular person commences to be a candidate is a question to be considered in each case.”
The discussion in this passage makes it clear that the word “election” can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of
several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the process.
provisions of Chapter II of Part IV dealing with the form of election petitions, their contents and the reliefs which may be sought in them. Section 80, which is drafted in almost the same language as Article 329(b), provides that “no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part”. Section 100, as we have already seen, provides for the grounds on which an election may be called in question, one of which is the improper rejection of a nomination paper. Section 105 says that “every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shall be final and conclusive”. Section 170 provides that “no civil court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the Returning Officer or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with an election”. These are the main provisions regarding election matters being judicially dealt with, and it should be noted that there is no provision anywhere to the effect that anything connected with elections can be questioned at an intermediate stage.
“There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law; there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy: there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it… The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.”
and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co [44 CWN 709] ; and it has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights: see Hurdutrai v. Official Assignee of Calcutta [52 CWN 343, 349] . That being so, I think it will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act to state that the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage.
“No parliamentary election and no return to Parliament shall be questioned except by a petition complaining of an undue election or undue return (hereinafter referred to as a “parliamentary election petition”) presented in accordance with this Part of this Act.”
the decision of the Returning Officer disallowing an objection to a nomination paper shall be final, but allowing the same shall be subject to reversal on a petition questioning the election or return. These rules however do not affect the main argument. I think it can be legitimately stated that if words similar to those used in Article 329(b) have been consistently treated in England as words apt to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts including the High Court, the same consequence must follow from the words used in Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The words “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution” give to that article the same wide and binding effect as a statute passed by a sovereign legislature like the English Parliament.
“(1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not affect the ‘election’; and if any irregularities are
committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the ‘election’ and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress.
“These two Acts of Parliament, the Acts of 1872 and 1875, are Acts peculiar in their character. They are not Acts constituting or providing for the decision of mere ordinary civil rights; they are Acts creating an entirely new, and up to that time unknown, jurisdiction in a particular Court …. for the purpose of taking out, with its own consent, of the legislative Assembly, and vesting in that Court, that very peculiar jurisdiction which, up to that time, had existed in the legislative Assembly of deciding election petitions, and determining the status of those who claimed to be members of the legislative Assembly. A jurisdiction of that kind is extremely special, and one of the obvious incidents or consequences of such a jurisdiction must be that the jurisdiction, by whomsoever it is to be exercised, should be exercised in such a way that should as soon as possible become conclusive; and enable the constitution of the legislative Assembly to be distinctly and speedily known.”
After dealing with certain other matters, the Lord Chancellor proceeded to make the following further observations:
“Now, the subject-matter, as has been said, of the legislation is extremely peculiar. It concerns the rights and privileges of the electors and of the legislative Assembly to which they elect members. Those rights and privileges have always in every colony, following the example of the mother country, been jealously maintained and guarded by the legislative Assembly. Above all, they have been looked upon as rights and privileges which pertain to the legislative Assembly, in complete independence of the Crown, so far as they properly exist. And it would be a result somewhat surprising, and hardly in consonance with the general scheme of the legislation, if, with regard to rights and privileges of this kind, it were to be found that in the last resort the determination of them no longer belonged to the legislative Assembly, no longer belonged to the Superior Court which the legislative Assembly had put in its place, but belonged to the Crown-in-Council, with the advice of the advisers of the Crown-at-home, to be determined without reference either to the judgment of the legislative Assembly, or of that Court which the legislative Assembly had substituted in its place.”
The points which emerge from this decision may be stated as follows:
“(1) The right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to the limitations imposed by it.
(2) Strictly speaking, it is the sole right of the legislature to examine and determine all matters relating to the election of its own members, and if the legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a Special Tribunal an entirely new and unknown jurisdiction, that special jurisdiction should be exercised in accordance with the law which creates it.”
“All doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or VicePresident shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final.”
The argument was as follows: There is a marked contrast https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ between the language used in Article 71(1) and that of
Article 329(b). The difference in the phraseology employed in the two provisions suggests that they could not have been intended to have the same meaning and scope as regards matters to be brought up before the tribunals they respectively deal with. If the framers of the Constitution, who apparently knew how to express themselves, intended to include within the ambit of Article 329(b) all possible disputes connected with elections to legislatures, including disputes as to nominations, they would have used similar words as are to be found in Article 71(1). It is true that it is not necessary to use identical language in every provision, but one can conceive of various alternative ways of expression which would convey more clearly and properly what Article 329(b) is said to convey.
“No election shall be called in question, except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part.”
It should be noted that this rule occurs in Part VII, the heading of which is “The final decision of doubts and disputes as to the validity of an election”. These words throw some light on the function which the election tribunal was to perform, and they are the very words which the learned counsel for the appellant argued, ought to have been used to make the meaning clear.
“No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part of the Order.”
This rule is to be found in Part III of the Order, the heading of which is “Decision of doubts and disputes as to validity of an election and disqualification for corrupt practices.”
“It was next contended that if nomination is part election, a dispute as to the validity of nomination is a dispute relating to election and that can be called in question only in accordance with the provisions of Article 329(b) by the presentation of an election petition to the appropriate Tribunal and that the Returning Officer would have no jurisdiction to decide that matter, and it was further argued that Section 36 of Act 43 of 1951 would be ultra vires inasmuch as it confers on the Returning Officer a jurisdiction which, Article 329(b) confers on a Tribunal to be appointed in accordance with the article.” This argument displays great dialectical ingenuity, but it has no bearing on the result of this appeal and I think it can be very shortly answered. Under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is the duty of the Returning Officer to scrutinize the nomination papers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the
Act and decide all objections which may be made to any nomination. It is clear that unless this duty is discharged properly, any number of candidates may stand for election without complying with the provisions of the Act and a great deal of confusion may ensue. In discharging the statutory duty imposed on him, the Returning Officer does not call in question any election. Scrutiny of nomination papers is only a stage, though an important stage, in the election process. It is one of the essential duties to be performed before the election can be completed, and anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election. The fallacy of the argument lies in treating a single step taken in furtherance of an election as equivalent to election. The decision of this appeal however turns not on the construction of the single word “election”, but on the construction of the compendious expression — “no election shall be called in question” in its context and setting, with due regard to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Evidently, the argument has no bearing on this method of approach to the question posed in this appeal, which appears to me to be the only correct method.
of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the Returning Officer treating the first respondent as an independent candidate and not as a candidate set up by the Telangana Rashtra Samithi vide his order dated 2.4.2004 as illegal and further prayed for a direction to the said Returning Officer to treat the first respondent as a candidate set up by the said Telangana Rashtra Samithi political party and allot the symbol of 'car' to him. When the said writ petition came up for preliminary hearing the High Court, while issuing notice of admission and hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties at the interlocutory stage, came to the conclusion that the reason given by the Returning Officer for refusing to recognise the first respondent as an official candidate of Telangana Rashtra Samithi and consequential refusal to allot the official symbol of that party, was not acceptable even at that interlocutory stage because the errors pointed out by the Returning Officer were due to inadvertence and there was no other candidate set up by the said Telangana Rashtra Samithi in the said Constituency for which the first respondent had filed his nomination. It also took notice of an affidavit filed by the President of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi stating inter alia that the party had authorised him to issue B Form to the candidate set up by that party in the ensuing Assembly and Parliamentary elections and exercising said authority he had issued Form B to the first respondent herein. Based on the above material the High Court came to the conclusion that the irregularity, if any, found in Form B was so technical and trivial that the same did not justify the decision of the Returning Officer to treat the first respondent as an independent candidate and not as a candidate set up by the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, hence, issued the impugned directions setting asidethe decision of the Returning Officer. It also came to the conclusion that the issue relating to allotment of symbol by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers is not one of the grounds on which an election petition could be filed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R.P.Act,1951). Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, appellant contended that:-
(i) the High Court was not justified in entertaining a writ petition after issuance of election notification because of the specific bar found in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India read with the other provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
(ii) the order of the High Court directing the Returning Officer to treat Respondent 1 as candidate of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi and to allot the official symbol of the political party to him was not justifiable.
(iii) In view of glaring defects and omissions found in Form B filed by the first respondent which are in contravention of the Representation of the People Act, the Rules and Orders made thereunder, it was only the Returning Officer who was competent to adjudicate on such issues and the High Court could not have in a petition filed under Article 226 decided that issue.
Allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
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.
"But what is banned is not anything whatsoever done or directed by the Commissioner but everything he does or directs in furtherance of the election, not contrarywise. For example, after the President notifies the nation on the holding of elections under Section 15 and the Commissioner publishes the calendar for the poll under Section 30, if the latter orders returning officers to accept only one nomination or only those which come from one party as distinguished from other parties or independents, is that order immune from immediate attack. We think not. Because the Commissioner is preventing an election, not promoting it and the Court's review of that order will facilitate the flow, not stop the stream. Election, wide or narrow be its connotation, means choice from a possible plurality, monolithic politics not being our genius or reality, and if that concept is crippled by the Commissioner's act, he holds no election at all."
then thecourts under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the orders of the Returning Officers remedy for which lies in an election petition only.
setting aside the order of the Returning Officer which is prima facie just and proper in our opinion."
"3. The petitioner's case is that after the nomination paper was filed by him, the 1st respondent issued a communication to the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent on 30th March, 2011. While submitting the nomination paper, the petitioner enclosed the list of proposers, namely, 10 of them along with their voter list of 80 Kallakurichi SC Assembly constituency containing their names and photographs pertaining to the voter list of the year 2008. On a scrutiny of the papers, the Returning Officer found that the list of proposers, i.e., namely 10 of them of whom the voter list had been filed, pertaining to the year 2008, did not find place in the voter list of 2011 kept by the 1st respondent. Consequently, the nomination was rejected, as on scrutiny the details of proposers like Part Number and Continuation Number when compared to 2011 voter list did not tally.
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;
(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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ presented to such authority and in such manner as may be
provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.
"6. It is well-settled law that once election process is set in motion, till the declaration of election results, it cannot be stopped as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another V. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 121 and 122 of the said judgment as hereunder :
"121. As already pointed out, it is well-settled that election covers the entire process from the issue of the notification under Section 14 to the declaration of the result under Section 66 of the Act. When a Poll that has already taken place has been cancelled and a fresh poll has been ordered, the order therefor, with the amended date is passed as an integral part of the electoral process. We are not concerned with the question whether the impugned order
is right or wrong or invalid on any account. Even if it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a wrong order it does not cease to be an order passed by a
competent authority charged with the conduct of elections with the aim and object of completing the elections. Although that is not always decisive, the impugned order itself shows that it has been passed in the exercise of power under Article 324(1) and Section 153 of the Act. That is also the correct position. Such an order, relating, as it does, to election within the width of the expression as interpreted by this Court, cannot be questioned except by an election petition under the Act.
all appropriate reliefs and that the dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice the appellants."
"4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed nomination application on 17.3.2017 for contesting in coming assembly by-election in R.K. Nagar Constituency. Subsequent to the filing of nomination application, the petitioner was instructed to comply with three requirements, which were duly complied with by the petitioner. However, on 24.3.2017, the impunged order came to be passed by the second respondent rejecting the nomination application of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
Your nomination application No.8 was scrutinized. On scrunity the following decision was ordered
Article 329 Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution - (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. Section 80 Election petitions No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
(1) Having regard to the important functions which the Legislatures have to perform in democratic countries it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule, and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the 'election'; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the 'election' and enable the person affected to call in question they should be brought up before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress.
-sdAssistant Registrar /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar
skm
To
+1 CC to M/S.The Govt.Pleader SR.NO.32449/2019
W.P.No.10168 of 2019
skm
cm 21/06/2019
03.04.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Is a writ petition seeking acceptance of rejected parliamentary election nomination papers maintainable in view of Article 329(b)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.P.Ponnuswami and the Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, and othersFollowed¶34
N.P.Ponnuswami and the Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, and others reported in AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court 64 · Who else cites this
Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S.Rathnam and OthersFollowed¶105
Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S.Rathnam and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492 · Who else cites this
N.Dharmalingam Vs. the Returning Officer, Kallakurichi and anotherFollowed¶124
N.Dharmalingam Vs. the Returning Officer, Kallakurichi and another reported in 2011 2 LW 919
S.Kumar v. Election Commission of IndiaFollowed¶136
S.Kumar v. Election Commission of India [W.P.No.17900 of 2016, dated 11.05.2016]
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Commissioner of ElectionsReferred¶136
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Commissioner of Elections reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 · Who else cites this
Kameshwaran v. The State, Represented by the Chief Electoral Officer, Chennai and othersFollowed¶145
Kameshwaran v. The State, Represented by the Chief Electoral Officer, Chennai and others [W.P.No.7642 of 2017, 27.03.2017]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
V.M.Arumugam
The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Election Commission of India
The Chief Election Commissioner Election Commission of India
The Chief Electoral Officer Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
The Returning Officer No.6 Sriperumbudur Parliamentary Constituency
S.MANIKUMAR
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
