WB Poll: Calcutta High Court Declines To Interfere In Nomination Dispute Mid-Polls, Says Remedy Lies In Election Petition
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with the acceptance of a candidate's nomination during the ongoing election process, holding that such disputes must be agitated through an election petition after the polls. Disposing of a writ petition filed by an independent candidate from the 117–Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency, Justice Krishna Rao observed that “if any order...
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with the acceptance of a candidate's nomination during the ongoing election process, holding that such disputes must be agitated through an election petition after the polls.
Disposing of a writ petition filed by an independent candidate from the 117–Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency, Justice Krishna Rao observed that “if any order is passed, the same will amount to interference with the election process,” and therefore declined to exercise writ jurisdiction at this stage.
The petitioner had challenged the acceptance of the nomination of a rival candidate, fielded by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) alleging that her affidavit suffered from serious defects, including the absence of a signature in the verification portion and a discrepancy in dates, with the affidavit mentioning April 8, 2026, while the notarial seal bore April 7, 2026.
It was further contended that despite filing a counter-affidavit raising objections, the Returning Officer neither uploaded the same nor passed a reasoned order, allegedly in violation of the prescribed procedure and the principles laid down in Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India regarding disclosure obligations.
The Election Commission, however, submitted that the candidate had subsequently rectified the defect by filing a fresh affidavit bearing proper signature, and the earlier defective affidavit was deleted. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was present during scrutiny proceedings and had expressed satisfaction before leaving, though it was admitted that no formal reasoned order was recorded by the Returning Officer while accepting the nomination.
Taking note of the rival contentions, the Court observed that the matter involved disputed questions of fact, particularly as “there are two affidavits” and whether the corrected affidavit was validly accepted would require evidentiary examination. The Court held that such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and must be determined in appropriate proceedings. Relying on the constitutional bar under Article 329 and the principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Court reiterated that judicial interference in electoral matters during the process is impermissible.
The Court further noted the Supreme Court's recent observations in Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi that “minor procedural errors or purely technical objections of inconsequential nature should not be allowed to override the mandate of the electorate,” cautioning against courts undermining electoral outcomes on technical grounds. It held that under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, improper acceptance of nomination is a ground to challenge an election, but only through an election petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all grounds before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the allegations, observing that any future adjudication must proceed “without being influenced with any observations made in this order.
Case: Arindam Ghosh Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WPA 9346 of 2026