Court Upholds Article 329(b) Bar, Directs Concerns to be Addressed Post-Election via Election Petition
The Madras High Court, on June 17, 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Arjunan Sampath seeking judicial intervention in the scrutiny of nomination papers for candidates contesting from Scheduled Caste reserved constituencies in Tamil Nadu. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, ruled that the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the explicit bar under Article 329(b).
Arjunan Sampath, a public-spirited petitioner, argued that individuals who had converted to religions not recognized under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, such as Christianity or Islam, were fraudulently contesting elections using their previous Scheduled Caste certificates. This, he contended, eroded the constitutional protections and reservations intended for genuine Scheduled Caste communities.
However, the Court found no merit in the writ petition, emphasizing that any grievances related to disqualification or false declarations by candidates should be addressed through an election petition post-election, as stipulated under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's position that interference in the election process mid-stream was impermissible under Article 329(b).
The Bench also noted that the Election Commission of India had established stringent guidelines, effective since July 2, 2008, requiring Returning Officers to verify the caste status of candidates during the nomination scrutiny process. The Court confirmed that these guidelines were adequate to address concerns of fraudulent nominations and no additional judicial directions were necessary.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the legal framework governing electoral processes and reserved constituencies, and affirming the statutory remedy of filing an election petition for post-election disputes.
Bottom line:-
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to interfere with the election process mid-stream, as the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution applies, and the grievance must be addressed post-election through an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
Arjunan Sampath v. Chief Electoral Officer, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2925971
