Howsoever Erroneous Rejection Of Nomination Is, Judicial Intervention Not Contemplated At Intermediate Stage Of Election: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has iterated the legal position that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 to interfere with questions relating to the acceptance or rejection of nomination papers.

In its detailed order rejecting writ petitions moved by various candidates for this year's Kerala Legislative Assembly elections challenging the rejection of their nomination papers, the High Court has emphasized that any interference with the same would interfere with the progress of the election. In this light, Bench of Justice N Nagaresh remarks,

"Rejection or acceptance of nomination papers cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution."

However, the allegations raised against the Returning Officers by the petitioners did not pass unnoticed by the Court.

Voicing its concern over the allegations of differential treatment of candidates across constituencies, Justice Nagaresh expressed that the allegations if true would be "grossly discriminatory".

The Court stated,

"Returning Officers in different constituencies are resorting different parameters in the matter of acceptance of nominations, scrutiny of nominations and acceptance of various forms. When some candidates get the benefits of liberal approach of the Returning Officers, some others are put to disadvantageous position affecting their statutory right under the Representation of the People Act to contest in the elections.."

"Such divergent considerations and differential treatment would indeed tell upon the impartiality of the electoral officers and Returning Officers," the Court proceeded to remark.

Therefore, the Court exhorted the Election Commission to ensure "such differential treatment is excluded and the purity of the election process is maintained".

How the Court Ruled

"To what extent interference of this court is possible in the electoral process?"

Arguably the all-encompassing question before the Court in this round of litigation, the parties had each asserted their stances with case law. The petitioners maintained that their petitions concerning elections were maintainable because they did not stop or stall the elections in any manner.

On the other hand, the Election Commission averred that the petitions at hand interfered with the process. The powers of the Returning Officers could not be questioned because when accepting/rejecting nominations, they exercised a quasi-judicial power, it was argued.

Referring to judgments, the Court highlighted the following legal principles from precedent:

The court could interfere with errors that affected the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder the progress of the election (Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and Others)

The Representation of the People Act does not contemplate both invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 as well as presenting an election petition (Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and Others)

The scheme of the constitutional and statutory framework mandates that any matter that vitiates the election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before the Special Tribunal and should not be brought up at the intermediate stage before any court. (Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and Others)

The Court must be wary and cautious while entertaining an election dispute, even if not hit by Article 329. (Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Others)

The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. (Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Others)

The High Court cannot interfere with matters relating to the rejection/acceptance of nomination papers as this interrupted the progress of the election (Abdulla v. Kerala State Election Commission, Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer)

"The Election Commission exercises plenary powers under Article 226".

Pointing out that the Constitution conferred plenary powers upon the Election Commission under Article 324, the Court reasoned that the Commission could cure error or deficiencies in the electoral process.

Ruling that it was open to the Election Commission of India to look into the allegation raised by the petitioners and take appropriate measures as remedy, the petitions were dismissed.

The Court clarified that since the contentions had not been considered on merits, they were left open to be raised whenever appropriate.

In the petitioners' cases, the Returning Officer rejected the nominations citing the reason that Form A did not have the signature of the Party President/Secretary.

The Election Commission of India told the Court that judicial interference in poll matters is barred after the notification of elections, as per Article 329B of the Constitution.

Click here to download the judgment