Election challenge and affidavit disclosure disputes must be pursued through election petition, not writ jurisdiction.

Article 329(b) bars a direct writ challenge to an election, and objections based on alleged suppression or incorrect disclosure in a candidate's nomination affidavit must be pursued through an election petition. The grounds for voiding an election lie under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, so such disputes are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction or at the nomination stage by the Returning Officer. The proper statutory remedy is an election proceeding challenging acceptance of the nomination or the election result.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to seek enquiry into alleged non-disclosure in a candidate's affidavit filed in the election process, in view of the constitutional bar and the remedy of election petition.

Analysis: Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India bars a challenge to an election except by election petition. Grounds for declaring an election void are provided in Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The relief sought, based on alleged suppression or incorrect disclosure in the affidavit accompanying the nomination, was treated as a matter that can be examined only in election proceedings and not by writ jurisdiction. The decision also relied on the principle that detailed scrutiny of such allegations is not ordinarily undertaken by the Returning Officer at the nomination stage and that any challenge to improper acceptance must be pursued through the statutory election remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---