A bench of justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar said the law in election-related disputes was settled that an election petition was not maintainable after the commencement of the election process. “Whenever an attempt has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32, or that of the high courts under Article 226, during the process of elections, this court has repeatedly declined interference, having regard to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution,” the bench said.
The argument by Natarajan’s counsel that the court ought to intervene where the rejection of a nomination is ex facie illegal, manifestly arbitrary and demonstrably erroneous, found no favour with the bench.
“If such a distinction were to be recognised, courts would be required to classify election disputes into two categories – first, those involving allegedly glaring or manifest errors warranting immediate intervention under Articles 32 or 226; and second, those where the aggrieved party must await the remedy of an election petition,” the bench observed.
The bench said such a distinction finds no place in Article 329(b) (concerning challenges to elections for legislative posts) of the Constitution.
“To accept the petitioner’s submission would amount to reading into the constitutional scheme, an exception which has not been provided by the Constitution itself,” the bench said.
Dismissing her plea, the bench said: “We are afraid that any interpretation permitting courts to entertain challenges to rejection of nominations in some cases, while relegating other candidates to the statutory remedy of an election petition, would be inconsistent with the settled constitutional position and ought not to be encouraged.”
