A writ petition under Art.32 challenging rejection of a nomination paper during an ongoing election is barred by Art.329(b) Const. of India; the proper remedy is an election petition after completion of the election process.

on

Facts

The petitioner, Meenakshi Natarajan, challenged the Returning Officer’s order dated 09.06.2026 rejecting her nomination for a Rajya Sabha seat from Madhya Pradesh. The rejection was based on alleged non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in Form 26 affidavit filed with the nomination papers. The petitioner contended that S.33A Representation of the People Act, 1951 required disclosure only where charges had been framed in a pending criminal case punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, whereas in her case, according to her submission, charges had not been framed. She approached the Election Commission and thereafter filed the present writ petition under Art.32 Const. of India.

Issues Framed

Whether a writ petition under Art.32 challenging rejection of a nomination paper during the election process is maintainable in view of Art.329(b) Const. of India.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court held that the controversy regarding correctness or legality of rejection of a nomination paper falls within the election process and is governed by the constitutional bar contained in Art.329(b) Const. of India (Para 6, 10).

(b) Relying extensively upon N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94, the Court reiterated that the expression “election” in Art.329(b) bears a wide meaning and encompasses the entire process culminating in the declaration of a candidate as elected (Para 9–10).

(c) The Court emphasized that election law contemplates that disputes affecting the validity of an election, including improper rejection of nomination papers, must be raised only through an election petition after completion of the election process. Entertaining writ proceedings at an intermediate stage would disrupt the constitutional scheme and election timetable (Para 9–10, 12).

(d) The petitioner’s argument that the rejection was manifestly illegal and therefore warranted immediate constitutional intervention was rejected. The Court held that creating exceptions for “glaring” or “manifest” cases would amount to reading into Art.329(b) a qualification not found in the Constitution and would directly conflict with the rule in Ponnuswami (Para 12).

(e) The Court noted that the principles in Ponnuswami have consistently been followed whenever constitutional courts were asked to intervene during an ongoing election process (Para 10).

Held

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable because of the express bar under Art.329(b) Const. of India. The Court declined to examine the merits of the Returning Officer’s decision. It clarified that its observations regarding rejection of nomination were only for deciding maintainability and would not affect any election petition that may subsequently be filed (Para 13–14).

Ratio

Art.329(b) Const. of India bars judicial interference under Art.32 or Art.226 in disputes concerning rejection of nomination papers during an ongoing election; such grievances can be raised only through an election petition after completion of the election process. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 643
Decided on: 12 June 2026
Case Title: Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.; Atul S. Chandurkar, J.