The Supreme Court has held that the rejection of an election nomination cannot be challenged through writ petition during the ongoing election process.

The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has dismissed a writ petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination for a Rajya Sabha seat from Madhya Pradesh. 

The bench held that Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars courts from entertaining election-related disputes at an intermediate stage and that the appropriate remedy lies in filing an election petition after completion of the election process. 

The case arose after the Returning Officer, by an order dated June 9, 2026, rejected Natarajan’s nomination for the biennial Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh. According to the Returning Officer, the candidate had failed to disclose the pendency of a criminal case in her Form-26 affidavit submitted along with the nomination papers. The order stated that a criminal complaint was pending against her, summons had been issued, and she had already appeared before the concerned court, indicating that she had knowledge of the proceedings. 

Following the rejection, the petitioner approached the Election Commission of India seeking intervention. However, according to her submissions before the Supreme Court, no decision had been taken by the Commission despite a written representation and personal appearance before it on June 10, 2026. 

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) was not attracted because the petition sought to ensure a fair and lawful election process rather than obstruct it. He contended that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires disclosure only in cases where a candidate is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more and where charges have already been framed by a competent court. 

According to the petitioner, the criminal proceedings relied upon by the Returning Officer had not progressed to the stage where charges had been framed. Therefore, the omission could not legally justify rejection of the nomination. It was further argued that judicial precedents permit limited intervention where such interference facilitates rather than obstructs the electoral process. 

The Election Commission, private respondents and the State of Madhya Pradesh opposed the petition at the threshold. Senior counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the right to contest an election is a statutory right and not a fundamental right. Consequently, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was not maintainable. 

The respondents relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer and subsequent precedents to contend that rejection of a nomination paper can only be challenged through an election petition after the election process is completed. They argued that neither the High Courts under Article 226 nor the Supreme Court under Article 32 can intervene during an ongoing election. 

The Bench examined Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which provides that no election to Parliament or a State Legislature can be called into question except through an election petition presented in the manner prescribed by law. The Court also considered Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deals with disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates. 

The judgment further referred to Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form 26, which requires candidates to disclose information relating to pending criminal cases, including details of FIRs, court proceedings, applicable statutory provisions and whether charges have been framed. 

While the respondents argued that all pending criminal cases must be disclosed irrespective of the stage of proceedings, the Court ultimately refrained from deciding the correctness of the Returning Officer’s interpretation because of the maintainability issue. 

The Court relied extensively on the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, which held that the term “election” in Article 329(b) covers the entire electoral process, including nomination, scrutiny, polling and declaration of results. Therefore, any challenge to actions taken during that process must ordinarily wait until completion of the election and be pursued through an election petition. 

The judgment highlighted that improper rejection of a nomination paper is itself a recognized ground in an election petition. Allowing judicial intervention before completion of elections would undermine the constitutional scheme aimed at ensuring timely completion of electoral processes and avoiding multiple proceedings. 

The Court reiterated that election laws constitute a self-contained code and that Article 329(b) was specifically designed to prevent courts from interrupting ongoing elections. 

Addressing the petitioner’s plea that the rejection was manifestly illegal and therefore warranted immediate intervention, the Court declined to carve out any exception. It observed that recognizing a category of “glaring” or “manifest” cases would amount to reading into Article 329(b) an exception that does not exist in the Constitution. 

The Bench noted that permitting courts to distinguish between cases warranting immediate intervention and those that should await election petitions would directly conflict with the settled law laid down in Ponnuswami and followed consistently thereafter. 

Concluding that Article 329(b) expressly bars judicial interference in such matters during the election process, the Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 32. The Bench held that it was not inclined to entertain the challenge to the rejection of the nomination paper at this stage. 

However, the Court clarified that any observations made in the judgment regarding the basis of rejection of the nomination were only for deciding the issue of maintainability. It expressly stated that such observations would not prejudice any election petition that may subsequently be filed and that any such challenge must be decided independently on its own merits. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Karnataka HC Declares ED Arrest of GamesKraft Founders Illegal, Orders Immediate Release from Jail