Acceptance of Nomination Can Be Challenged Only by Election Petition, Not Writ: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner challenged the Returning Officer's order of 28.10.2024, which rejected his objections and accepted the nomination form of respondent No. 3 for contesting the MLA election from Dausa constituency (para 1). His case was that respondent No. 3 made a false declaration and filed a false affidavit: his objection said the Income Tax Returns of the preceding three financial years and complete bank account details were not furnished (para 2). Relying on Lok Prahari v. Union of India, he contended that this was a corrupt practice and undue influence under Section 123(2) of the 1951 Act (para 2).

The Court framed the only issue as the improper acceptance of respondent No. 3's nomination (para 4). Section 100 of the 1951 Act makes improper acceptance or rejection of a nomination a ground for declaring an election void, and Section 80 permits an election to be questioned only by an election petition (paras 5, 8). Following N.P. Ponnuswami, the Court held that 'election' covers the whole process, including the acceptance or rejection of nominations, which can be challenged by an election petition (para 6). Relying on Manda Jaganath, it noted that only those actions of a Returning Officer that interfere with the free flow of scheduled elections or hinder the election process are amenable to writ jurisdiction; the petitioner did not claim that the order had that effect (para 9). Article 329(b) bars calling an election in question except by an election petition (para 10). Quoting Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, the Court noted that a challenge which may interrupt or protract election proceedings must be postponed until they are complete (para 11). Under Article 226 it could not examine whether the grounds for accepting the nomination were flimsy or substantial (para 12).