The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking verification of a candidate’s financial disclosures made in an election affidavit, holding that such challenges can only be raised through an election petition as prescribed under law.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the petition was not maintainable in view of the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Praveen Kumar, who sought directions against the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer of the Royapuram Assembly Constituency to verify the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings—including income tax aspects—of a contesting candidate in Form 26 submitted along with the nomination papers. 

The Court emphasized that any dispute relating to elections, including allegations of incorrect or incomplete disclosures in nomination affidavits, cannot be entertained through a writ petition. Instead, such grievances must be adjudicated only through an election petition filed in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant, the High Court observed that the Returning Officer is not equipped to conduct a detailed inquiry into allegations of false disclosures or suppression of material information at the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers.

The Court noted that while objections to affidavits may be raised at the time of nomination, the nature of such allegations often requires a detailed examination, which cannot be undertaken summarily by the Returning Officer. In such cases, the appropriate stage for adjudication is after the election, through an election petition. 

The Bench reiterated that non-disclosure or suppression of material information in an election affidavit is indeed a valid ground for declaring an election void. However, such a determination can only be made in properly instituted election proceedings and not through a writ jurisdiction.

The Court highlighted that permitting writ petitions in such matters would run contrary to the constitutional framework governing elections and could disrupt the electoral process.

While dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law, including filing an election petition if grounds exist.

Case Details

Case Title: Praveen Kumar Versus The Director general of Income Tax (Investigation)

Citation: JURISHOUR-1019-HC-2026(MAD) 

Case No.: W.P. No.16424 of 2026

Date: 27.04.2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: No appearance

Counsel For Respondent: AR.L.Sundaresan

Read More: S. 80HHC Deduction Can’t Be Reduced by Prior S. 80IA Deduction: Madras High Court