Writ against rejection of nomination form of candidate from Jehanabad Lok Sabha constituency is "not maintainable": Patna High Court

Relying  on the Supreme Court's pronouncement of law in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs Returning officer, Namakkal Constituency, Patna High Court's Single Judge Bench dismissed this writ petition of Abhishek Dangi, the petitioner for the Lok Sabha Eelction-2024 from 36 (Jehanabad Constituency) "as being not maintainable". Dangi was an independent candidate. 

The High Court heard the writ application filed on May 17, 2024 which sought direction upon the concerned Respondent to accept nomination of the petitioner. The petitioner's nomination form was rejected on hyper technical ground on May 15, 2024 by the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, Jehanabad. The Polling date for the said Constituency was on June 1, 2024. The petitioner made detailed representation to the concerned Respondents namely, the Election Commission of India, the District Returning Officer (Lok Sabha Election 2024)-cum District Magistrate, Jehanabad and the  State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna on May 16, 2024 but the same was not considered. It was heard on an application seeking urgent listing of the case made by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar. 

The counsel for the Election Commission of India submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court in view of Article 329 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the similar matter, Supreme Court has held that the word ‘election’ in Article 329 (b) connotes the entire electoral process commencing with the issue of the notification calling the election and culminating in the declaration of result, and that the electoral process once started could not be interfered with at any intermediary stage by Courts. Thus, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has been excluded in regard to matters provided for an Article 329 which covers all ‘electoral matters’.

The High Court noted that there is no provision for appeal in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against order of returning officer accepting or rejecting nomination paper. Nomination and scrutiny, being part of election process. 

It recalled Supreme Court's decision in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs Returning officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. [1952] S.C.R. The High Court observed that the bar created by Art 329 (b) of the Constitution is applicable to the orders of returning officer accepting or rejecting nomination papers and those orders also will have to be challenged in an election petition and not otherwise at a pre-poll stage. Article 329(b) of the Constitution lays down that "no election to either House of Parliament or to the either House of the Legislatures 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". Similar bar is also created by Section 80 of the Act of 1951 which reads that “no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part”. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's order concluded that "a suit, an appeal or a writ petition challenging the acceptance or rejection of nomination paper in an election to Central or State legislature is not competent." The order was passed on May 21, 2024. 

Notably, on May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea challenging rejection of the nomination from Jehanabad constituency. A vacation bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar asked the petitioner to approach a division bench of the Patna High Court with an appeal against the order of the single judge who rejected his petition challenging the rejection of his nomination papers. The court suggested that he can also file an election petition against the High Court order. The lawyer sought permission to withdraw the petition for exhausting the remedy available before the constitutional court. The permission was granted. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn. The website of the High Court indicates that the petitioner has not approached the division bench of the Patna High Court with an appeal against the order of the single judge who rejected his petition challenging the rejection of his nomination form, as yet. It also indicates that no election petition has been filed against the High Court's order so far.

"Counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present petition for exhausting the remedy available before the constitutional court," the bench noted while permitting the counsel to withdraw the plea. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/elections/india/lok-sabha-elections-2024-sc-refuses-to-entertain-independent-candidates-plea-against-rejection-of-nomination-3046420