[Maharashtra Elections] Court Can Interfere In Electoral Process Only To Progress And Further It: HC Denies Relief To Candidate Over Rejected Nomination

The Bombay High Court last week held that the High Courts do have 'jurisdiction' and 'power' to interfere in the electoral process but the same must be exercised only to further the process or progress of the elections.

A division bench of Justices Arif Doctor and Somasekhar Sundaresan, which was presiding over a vacation court on November 6, refused to grant any relief to one Ashish Gadkari, an independent candidate, whose nomination form was rejected by the Returning Officer of the Chembur Constituency in Mumbai, citing procedural lapses.

"The law as it stands, is that it cannot be stated as an absolute proposition that the writ courts are totally denuded of any jurisdiction whatsoever under Article 226, when there is a challenge made before the electoral process or after completion of the electoral process. Likewise, it must be noticed that an interference is warranted even when an election process is on, provided the interference subserves and facilitates the progress of election, rather than result in vitiating the election," the bench said.

The judges referred to the Supreme Court ruling in State of Goa vs Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh and said, "Fouziya would point to the position that a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 would have a narrow scope of interference even during the electoral process, insofar as it meets the purpose of progressing and facilitate the election."

Put differently, the judges explained, if administrative actions of returning officers and the State Election Commission vitiates the progress of the elections, the writ court may indeed consider whether to formulate an appropriate intervention.

The bench made the observations while disposing of the plea filed by Gadkari, a candidate from Mumbai's Chembur constituency, who challenged the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination form for want of signatures of the proposer. The petitioner Gadkari contended that the Returning Officer did not allow him to rectify the objections raised during the scrutiny of the nomination forms and thus, sought acceptance of his nomination form.

The judges noted that the objections raised by the Returning Officer, were to be rectified before 12:00 PM of October 29, 2024 but the same was not done. 

"There is no scope for giving any discretion to the Returning Officer to go beyond such deadline and enable parties to have the ability to supplement and continue with rectifications even after such deadline. It is a matter of public record that the time at which the scrutiny would commence was well known in the schedule published by the Election Commission," the bench said.

Further, the bench rejected the contention of the petitioner that he was under a bonafide impression that mere naming the proposer would be sufficient and that his signatures were not needed. 

"In an election process, time as to performance of the activities stipulated in the schedule is of the essence. If there is any administrative decision that vitiates the progress of the process, a writ court may intervene, but in the instant case, in view of the facts involved, no case has been made out for intervention since not only was the oath not administered within the stipulated time, but also, the nomination form itself is not signed by the proposer," the bench observed.

With these observations, the judges, disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in future.

Appearance:

 Senior Advocate Arshad Shaikh along with Advocates Prashant Trivedi and Khushboo Jain appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocate Akshay Shinde represented the Election Commission.

Assistant Government Pleader Himanshu Takke represented the State.

Case Title: Ashish Kishor Gadkari vs Election Commission of India (Writ Petition (L) 33675 of 2024)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 582

Click Here To Read/Download Order