Cannot hear petitions challenging rejection of poll nomination forms: Bombay HC

Putting to rest questions on whether the high court (HC) was in a position to entertain petitions that challenge rejection of nomination forms by returning officers, a full bench of the Bombay HC has observed that it cannot do so in light of article 243-O (b) of the Constitution and cannot be considered in the scope of article 226 as well

Putting to rest questions on whether the high court (HC) was in a position to entertain petitions that challenge rejection of nomination forms by returning officers, a full bench of the Bombay HC has observed that it cannot do so in light of article 243-O (b) of the Constitution and cannot be considered in the scope of article 226 as well. The full bench comprising of chief justice Dipankar Datta, justice AS Gadkari and justice GS Kulkarni in their judgement have, however, held that allowing a challenge in a writ petition regarding rejection of nomination form to contest an election may not always amount to intervention, obstruction or protraction of the election.

After hearing the petitions and objections, the bench referred the petitions to a larger bench seeking clarity on whether such petitions could be heard by the HC.

A division bench, while hearing petitions filed by disgruntled candidates whose nomination forms for Bhose grampanchayat elections in Solapur were rejected by the returning officer (RO), was informed that their nomination forms had been rejected arbitrarily and hence sought to set aside the same and to allow the candidates to contest the election or stay the elections till the petitions were decided.

After hearing the petitions and on the objection to the maintainability of the petition by the state, the bench referred the petitions to a larger bench seeking clarity on whether such petitions could be heard by the HC.

The questions before the larger bench were as follows: Whether a challenge in a writ petition to rejection of nomination form to contest an election and granting the relief claimed by setting aside such order of rejection would amount to intervention, obstruction or protraction of the election or is it a step to facilitate the process of completion of election? Second, whether rejection of nomination form would attract the provisions of article 243-O (b) of the Constitution of India? And third, which of the two previous orders of the court in similar cases represented the correct view in law?

While the counsels for petitioners contended that courts could hear such petitions in the absence of proper redressal mechanism, the state held that as per the Constitution, the court could not hear the petitions as the redressal for the aggrieved candidates was in the form of election petition after the conclusion of elections.

After hearing the submissions, the bench, however, held that such a petition could not be entertained in view of clearly applicable article 243-O (b) of the Constitution which provides that no election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority.

The court also observed the lack of provision related to the appeal against rejection and said, “If indeed the issue is so serious that ROs are inefficient and incapable of discharging the solemn duty entrusted to them, it is for the state legislature to make appropriate provisions in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (MVP) Act, 1958.”

The full bench concluded its judgement stating that petitions against rejection of nomination papers prior to polls are not maintainable and the same ‘represents the correct view of law’. In light of this, the full bench directed the division bench to decide on the issue of the candidature of the petitioners in due course.