Article 329(b) bars writ challenges to nomination rejection; election disputes must await a post-election petition.

Article 226 was held unavailable to challenge the Returning Officer's rejection of a nomination paper because Article 329(b) bars judicial interference in matters integral to the electoral process until the election is completed. The constitutional scheme in Part XV was treated as a complete code, and the phrase "no election shall be called in question" was read broadly to cover the entire election process, including scrutiny and rejection of nominations. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 was viewed as supporting a single post-election remedy through an election petition. The proper course, therefore, was to pursue the challenge only after the election, not by intermediate writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lay to challenge the Returning Officer's rejection of a nomination paper, or whether Article 329(b) barred such interference and confined the challenge to an election petition after the election.

Analysis: The electoral scheme in Part XV of the Constitution was treated as a complete code, with Article 324 dealing with conduct of elections, Articles 327 and 328 with law-making powers on elections, and Article 329 with the forum and stage for disputes. The expression "no election shall be called in question" was held to bear a wide meaning, extending to the entire electoral process and not merely the final declaration of result. Rejection of nomination papers was regarded as one stage in that process, and not as a separate matter capable of being challenged midstream in the High Court. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, especially the provisions for scrutiny of nominations, election petitions, grounds for voiding elections, finality of tribunal orders, and exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, was read as supporting a single post-election remedy. The negative language of Article 329(b), reinforced by its "notwithstanding" clause, was held to exclude intermediate judicial interference.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the challenge to the rejection of the nomination paper, and the proper remedy was an election petition after the election.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Constitution and election law provide an exclusive post-election remedy, intermediate judicial review under Article 226 is barred and matters integral to the electoral process, including scrutiny of nominations, cannot be separately questioned before completion of the election.

---