Case Background
The petitioner is a candidate who filed her nomination paper to contest the election from 21 Hajipur (Scheduled Caste) Parliamentary Constituency. The election was part of the 2019 general elections, with polling for this constituency scheduled on 6 May 2019.
Under the election rules, a candidate’s nomination must be proposed and signed by the required number of proposers. For this seat, the petitioner had to submit a nomination paper with ten proposers.
On scrutiny of nominations held on 20 April 2019, the Returning Officer-cum-District Election Officer, Vaishali, rejected the petitioner’s nomination. The reason recorded was that the nomination paper did not contain the signatures of the proposers as required.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9127 of 2019. She sought quashing of the Returning Officer’s order rejecting her nomination and a direction to treat the nomination as valid, to print her name on the ballot paper, and to grant any other appropriate relief.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came up for hearing on 24 April 2019 before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain. The Court heard submissions from both sides: the petitioner’s senior counsel and the advocates for the Election Commission of India, the State Election Commission, and the State of Bihar.
The petitioner’s side first accepted a crucial fact: out of the ten proposers whose names appeared on the nomination paper, eight had not signed it. According to the petitioner, this happened “through inadvertence and under confusion”.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that this omission was a curable, non-substantive defect. He submitted that the Returning Officer should have allowed the proposers to sign the nomination paper at the time of scrutiny rather than rejecting it outright. He maintained that refusal to permit correction was arbitrary and illegal.
In support, he relied on two decisions. First, he referred to paragraph 35 of the Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851. He argued that this judgment shows that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not fully barred where the impugned act is unrelated to or taints the election process.
Second, he cited an earlier order of the Patna High Court dated 16 March 2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 3121 of 2001, Chaturanan Yadav v. The State of Bihar & Ors.. In that case, various petitioners had approached the Court regarding rejection of their nomination papers for Panchayat elections on what were claimed to be trivial grounds. The petitioner pointed out that the Court there had issued directions permitting aggrieved persons to place their grievances before the District Electoral Officer.
Based on this, the petitioner urged that the present matter too be remanded or suitable directions be issued so that her nomination could be treated as valid. She also emphasized the election schedule. The date for allotment of symbols was 23 April 2019, one day before the hearing, and she argued that it was unlikely that ballot papers would have been printed within a day. Therefore, according to her, there was still time to include her name on the ballot.
On the other side, counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer strongly opposed the writ petition. They relied on Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which bars courts from interfering in elections except through election petitions after the election is over.
They placed particular reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and others, AIR 1952 SC 64. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the election law does not allow two separate attacks on matters connected with elections – one during the process by using writ jurisdiction, and another after completion through an election petition.
The Supreme Court had also stated that the significance of rejection of a nomination paper is that it can later be used as a ground to question the election by an election petition. Article 329(b) prescribes the manner and the stage at which such grounds can be raised. By necessary implication, those grounds cannot be raised at any other stage or in any other manner before any other court.
Relying on this, the respondents argued that the petitioner’s grievance, being directly about rejection of a nomination paper, fell squarely within this bar. They said that any challenge must be through an election petition after the election is over, not by writ during the election process.
The respondents further pointed out that there was no dispute on the core fact: the nomination paper did not contain signatures of eight proposers. According to the Returning Officer’s handbook, nomination papers must be rejected if they are not signed by the candidate and/or by the required number of proposers. Thus, the rejection was in line with the prescribed procedure and could not be termed arbitrary.
They also distinguished the order in Chaturanan Yadav. That order dealt with Panchayat elections, not Parliamentary elections. Moreover, even in that matter, the High Court had not restored any nomination paper. Instead, it left grievances to be decided by the District Electoral Officer, with the overriding concern that elections should proceed on schedule and that fresh ballot papers could be arranged in time.
In the present Lok Sabha election, the situation was different. Polling was scheduled for 6 May 2019, leaving less than two weeks from the date of hearing. Counsel stated that symbols had already been allotted to all eligible candidates. If the petitioner was now to be given a symbol, then as per the Symbols Order, 1968, the symbols already allotted to independent candidates would have to be withdrawn and re-allotted.
This, they argued, would disturb the entire election process and cause delay. They further informed the Court, on instructions, that the ballot papers had already been sent for printing on the morning of the hearing. Therefore, any interference now would disrupt the schedule and go against the mandate that elections should proceed smoothly.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court analysed the material. It first noted the admitted fact that the petitioner’s nomination paper was incomplete because eight proposers had not signed. The Court referred to Annexure-2, the Returning Officer’s handbook, which mandates rejection of nomination papers that are not signed by the candidate or by the required number of proposers.
The Court also noted that, according to the checklist of documents (Annexure-1), there were blank columns in certain parts of the nomination paper. However, as a copy of the nomination paper itself was not enclosed with the writ petition, the Court could not fully ascertain the nature of these additional defects.
Turning to the question of maintainability, the Court held that ordinarily, once the election process has commenced, a writ petition cannot be entertained due to the bar contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Any challenge must be raised by filing an election petition at the appropriate stage after the election.
The Court acknowledged that in Chaturanan Yadav it had not given positive orders for restoration of nomination papers even in Panchayat elections. Instead, it left grievances to the District Electoral Officer, with the “bottom line” being that ballot papers should be ready before the election date.
In the present case, however, the respondents had already sent the ballot papers for printing. The Court accepted that any interference at this stage would inevitably cause delay in the election process and would not be in furtherance of the constitutional mandate of conducting elections smoothly and on time.
The Court also observed that the petitioner was not left remediless. She would have an adequate alternate remedy of filing an election petition after the election, if she wished to challenge the rejection of her nomination or any subsequent result.
On this reasoning, the Court declined to grant any of the reliefs sought. It refused to quash the Returning Officer’s order, refused to direct acceptance of the nomination, and refused to order inclusion of the petitioner’s name on the ballot paper.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for candidates and voters as it underlines the strict nature of election procedures. The Patna High Court made it clear that missing signatures of proposers on a nomination paper is a serious defect, not a minor mistake that can simply be ignored or corrected at the last minute.
It also reinforces that once the election process has started, especially after scrutiny and symbol allotment, the High Court will rarely interfere using its writ jurisdiction. Instead, complaints about wrongful rejection of nomination have to wait until after the election and be raised through an election petition.
Practically, this means that candidates must be extremely careful while filling their nomination papers. They cannot assume that officials or courts will give them another chance if basic legal requirements, like signatures of proposers, are not met.
For election authorities, the judgment supports strict adherence to the Returning Officer’s handbook and the election schedule. The Court recognized that disturbing ballot printing and symbol allotment close to polling could jeopardize the entire process.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the Patna High Court, in writ jurisdiction, interfere with rejection of a Parliamentary election nomination paper for want of proposer signatures after the election process has begun?
Answer: No. The Court held that Article 329(b) bars such interference during the election process, and the proper remedy is an election petition after completion of the election.
Issue: Was the Returning Officer’s rejection of the petitioner’s nomination paper for lack of signatures of eight proposers arbitrary or illegal?
Answer: No. The Court held that, as per the Returning Officer’s handbook, a nomination without signatures of the required proposers must be rejected.
Issue: Could earlier directions issued by the Patna High Court in a Panchayat election case justify remanding this Parliamentary election matter to the Returning Officer?
Answer: No. The Court distinguished that case, noted that even there no nomination was restored, and stressed that in the present Parliamentary election ballot papers had already gone for printing, making intervention inappropriate.
Cases Cited by the Court
Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 – cited by the petitioner to argue that writ jurisdiction is not wholly barred in election matters.
N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and others, AIR 1952 SC 64 – relied upon by the respondents and followed by the Court to hold that Article 329(b) bars writ challenges to steps in the election process, including rejection of nominations.
Order dated 16.03.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 3121 of 2001, Chaturanan Yadav v. The State of Bihar & Ors. – referred to by both sides; distinguished by the Court as relating to Panchayat elections and not involving restoration of nominations.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9127 of 2019
Case Title: Geeta Kumari v. The Election Commission of India & Ors.
Citation: 2019 (2) PLJR 992
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Y.C. Verma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anuj Kumar; Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocates.
For respondent no. 1 (Election Commission of India): Mr. Siddhartha Prasad; Mr. Sunit Kumar; Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7; Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to GA-7.
For respondent no. 2 (State Election Commission, Patna): Mr. Amit Shrivastava; Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocates.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging rejection of nomination paper in a Parliamentary election.
Date of Judgment: 24 April 2019
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
