Lok Sabha Elections : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Rejection Of Independent Candidate's Nomination

The Supreme Court (on May 31) refused to entertain the petition filed by Abhishek Dangi challenging his rejection of nomination from Jehanabad(Bihar) Constituency as an independent candidate in the Lok Sabha Elections 2024. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar was hearing a Special Leave Petition challenging the Patna High Court's order that had dismissed the Writ petition filed by him.To give a brief background, it was argued before the High Court that Dangi's nomination was rejected on hyper technical grounds on May 15, 2024, by the Returning Officer, Jehanabad. Given that the polling date was June 01, 2024, for this constituency, a direction was sought against the Election Commission of India (ECI) to accept the said nomination.At the very outset, Justice Karol asked the petitioner's counsel to approach the division bench by way of a Letter Patents Appeal. He also suggested that an election petition can also be filed in the present case. Accordingly, the counsel withdrew the petition, and thus, the following order was passed:“Counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present petition for exhausting the remedy available before the Constitutional Court.”Details of the impugned orderIt may be noted that the ECI had challenged the petition's maintainability in view of Article 329 (Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters) of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the word 'election' in the Article connotes the entire electoral process starting from the notification calling the election and culminating in the declaration of result. Therefore, electoral process once started could not be interfered with at any intermediary stage by Courts. At the outset, the Court observed that there is no appeal provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the order of returning officers accepting or rejecting nomination papers. Apart from this, the Court cited the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. (1952). Therein, the Court had categorically held that the bar created by Article 329 (b), is applicable to the orders of returning officer accepting or rejecting nomination papers. As a result, these orders also will have to be challenged in an election petition and not otherwise at a pre- poll stage. For ready reference, Article 329(b) 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." Imperatively, 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.” Based on these facts and arguments, the High Court held, “Therefore, 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.” Case Title: ABHISHEK DANGI VS. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA., DIARY NO. - 25031/2024

Lok Sabha Elections : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Rejection Of Independent Candidate's Nomination

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags