The Court held that objections to acceptance of nomination, including alleged affidavit defects, must be raised through an election petition after completion of the election process, not through writ proceedings mid-polls.
The Calcutta High Court refused to interfere with the acceptance of a candidate’s nomination during an ongoing election. The Court held that parties must raise such disputes through an election petition at the appropriate stage.
Justice Krishna Rao disposed of a writ petition filed by an independent candidate from the 117–Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency. He stated that passing any order now would interfere with the election process. On that basis, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
Petitioner Challenges Rival Candidate’s Affidavit
The petitioner challenged the nomination of a rival candidate from the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC).
He argued that the candidate’s affidavit contained serious defects. The verification section lacked a signature. He also pointed out a date mismatch: the affidavit mentioned April 8, 2026, while the notarial seal showed April 7, 2026.
The petitioner further claimed that the Returning Officer failed to upload his counter-affidavit or issue a reasoned order. He argued that this violated procedural rules and the principles laid down in Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India.
Election Commission: Defect Was Corrected
The Election Commission responded that the candidate later corrected the defect by filing a fresh, signed affidavit.
It stated that authorities deleted the earlier defective affidavit. It also claimed that the petitioner attended the scrutiny proceedings and expressed satisfaction before leaving.
However, the Commission admitted that the Returning Officer did not record a formal reasoned order.
Court: Dispute Involves Facts, Not Suitable for Writ
The Court found that the case involved disputed questions of fact.
Justice Krishna Rao noted the existence of two affidavits. He stated that determining the validity of the corrected affidavit would require evidence. Such issues cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction.
Article 329 Bars Mid-Election Interference
The Court relied on Article 329 of the Constitution and the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner. It reiterated that courts should avoid interfering in electoral matters during the election process.
The Court also cited Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi. In that case, the Supreme Court held that minor procedural or technical errors should not override the will of the electorate.
The High Court warned against undermining elections on purely technical grounds.
Remedy Lies in Election Petition
The Court clarified that Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 allows challenges to improper acceptance of nominations.
However, parties can raise such challenges only after the election concludes, through an election petition.
The Court disposed of the writ petition and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue appropriate remedies at the proper stage. It also clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case. Any future proceedings must proceed independently, without influence from this order.
