Court Emphasizes Election Petition Route for Electoral Grievances, Rejects Writ Jurisdiction
In a significant judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court on April 22, 2026, Justice Krishna Rao dismissed a writ petition filed by Arindam Ghosh against the Union of India and others, concerning the acceptance of a nomination paper with alleged defects during the Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency elections. The petitioner contested the decision of the Returning Officer, who accepted the nomination of a candidate from the All India Trinamool Congress despite objections regarding discrepancies in the affidavit.
Arindam Ghosh, an independent candidate, raised concerns over the validity of the affidavit submitted by the opposing candidate, citing issues such as missing signatures and mismatched dates on the affidavit and notary public seal. Despite these objections, the Returning Officer proceeded to accept the nomination paper, prompting Ghosh to seek judicial intervention through a writ petition.
In the judgment, the court reiterated the principle that once the election process commences, disputes regarding nomination papers should be addressed through an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, rather than writ jurisdiction. This approach is reinforced by Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which bars judicial interference in electoral matters once the process has started.
Justice Rao emphasized that the Returning Officer's decision could be contested in an election petition, highlighting the importance of maintaining procedural integrity while respecting the electorate's mandate. The court refrained from intervening in the electoral process, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court, including the case of Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi, which underscores that minor procedural errors should not disrupt the electoral mandate unless fraudulent practices are involved.
The judgment also addressed the procedural aspect, noting the Returning Officer’s failure to provide a reasoned order despite accepting the nomination paper, a point the petitioner raised. However, the court maintained that such procedural lapses should be adjudicated during an election petition trial rather than through writ jurisdiction.
The ruling effectively disposes of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue an election petition if necessary. It reinforces the judicial stance of non-interference in ongoing electoral processes and ensures that electoral disputes are resolved within the framework established by electoral laws.
Bottom line:-
Representation of People's Act, 1951 - Acceptance of nomination by Returning Officer despite objections regarding defective affidavit - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for electoral disputes once the election process has begun. The proper remedy lies through an election petition under Section 100 of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sections 36, 100; Article 329 of the Constitution of India
Arindam Ghosh v. Union of India, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2892831
