1952 (1) TMI 20 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court lacks jurisdiction to review nomination rejections under Article 226

The Supreme Court affirmed the Madras High Court's decision, holding that the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain challenges to ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Interpretation of Article 329(b) of the Constitution.3. Scope and definition of the term 'election' within the context of Article 329(b).4. Applicability of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.5. Remedies available for improper rejection of nomination papers.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:The primary issue in this case was whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain petitions challenging the rejection of nomination papers. The appellant argued that the High Court's jurisdiction was not barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution. However, the judgment concluded that Article 329(b) excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters provided for within the article, emphasizing that the exclusive remedy for election disputes is through an election petition.Interpretation of Article 329(b):Article 329(b) states: 'no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for, by, or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.' The judgment highlighted that the term 'election' in Article 329(b) encompasses the entire electoral process, including the rejection of nomination papers, and not just the final result. Therefore, the article bars any challenge to the election process, including the rejection of nomination papers, except through an election petition.Scope and Definition of 'Election':The judgment clarified that the term 'election' in Article 329(b) has a broad meaning, encompassing the entire process leading to the final selection of a candidate. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that the election process includes multiple stages, such as nomination, scrutiny, polling, and declaration of results. The court referenced various legal texts and precedents to support this wide interpretation, emphasizing that the term 'election' should be understood in its comprehensive sense.Applicability of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides detailed provisions for the conduct of elections, including the scrutiny of nomination papers. Section 80 of the Act, which mirrors the language of Article 329(b), specifies that no election shall be called into question except by an election petition. The judgment underscored that the Act is a self-contained code for election matters, and any disputes regarding the election process must be resolved through the mechanisms provided within the Act, specifically through election petitions.Remedies for Improper Rejection of Nomination Papers:The judgment addressed the appellant's argument that the rejection of nomination papers should be subject to judicial review under Article 226. However, it concluded that such matters should be addressed through an election petition after the election is concluded. The court emphasized that allowing challenges at intermediate stages would disrupt the election process and contradict the purpose of Article 329(b) and the Representation of the People Act, which aim to ensure that elections proceed smoothly and disputes are resolved post-election.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's decision, affirming that the High Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain petitions challenging the rejection of nomination papers. The judgment emphasized the comprehensive nature of the term 'election' in Article 329(b) and the exclusive remedy provided by election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the views of the High Courts in other states, which aligned with this interpretation, were also affirmed.