Rejected Nomination Cannot Be Challenged Mid-Election Under Article 32 or 226; Remedy Is Election Petition: Supreme Court
Case Name: Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 643
Date of Judgment/Order: 12 June 2026
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. and Atul S. Chandurkar, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that where a candidate’s nomination paper is rejected during an ongoing Parliamentary or Legislative election, the rejection cannot be challenged mid-election by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 32 before the Supreme Court or Article 226 before the High Court. The Court reaffirmed that Article 329(b) of the Constitution creates an express bar against judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process, and the only remedy for improper rejection of nomination is an election petition after completion of the election. The Court declined to carve out an exception even for cases where rejection of nomination is alleged to be ex facie illegal or manifestly arbitrary.
Summary: The petitioner, an Indian National Congress candidate for the Rajya Sabha biennial election from Madhya Pradesh, challenged the Returning Officer’s order dated 09.06.2026 rejecting her nomination on the ground that she had not disclosed a pending criminal case in her Form 26 affidavit. The petitioner contended that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires disclosure only where an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more is pending and charges have been framed by a competent court, and since charges had not been framed, rejection of her nomination was illegal. She further argued that the writ petition did not seek to stall the election but to ensure its fair completion. The respondents opposed maintainability, relying on Article 329(b) and the settled law beginning with N.P. Ponnuswami, contending that rejection of nomination is part of the election process and can be questioned only through an election petition. The Supreme Court accepted this objection and held that allowing writ intervention in some supposedly glaring cases would introduce an exception not found in Article 329(b) and would directly conflict with the settled election law framework.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 32 as not maintainable in view of the express constitutional bar under Article 329(b). The Court held that even if the petitioner alleged glaring illegality in rejection of nomination, such grievance must be raised by way of an election petition before the competent High Court after completion of the election process. The Court clarified that any observations made regarding the basis of rejection were only for deciding maintainability and shall not affect any election petition filed by the petitioner or any other person, which must be decided independently on merits in accordance with law. All pending applications were disposed of.