The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that challenges to a candidate’s affidavit disclosures in election nominations cannot be adjudicated through writ petitions under Article 226. The judgment clarifies that such disputes are exclusively triable under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, through election petitions, reinforcing the statutory exclusivity of electoral dispute resolution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, B. Ramamoorthy, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the disqualification of the 5th respondent, K.C. Veeramani, a candidate in the forthcoming Tamil Nadu State Assembly Elections scheduled for 23.04.2026. The petitioner alleged that the 5th respondent committed a corrupt practice on 07.04.2026 at the office of the 4th respondent, the Returning Officer for the Jolarpet Constituency, by submitting a false or incomplete affidavit in support of his nomination.
Key Facts
- The 5th respondent filed his nomination papers for the Jolarpet Assembly Constituency ahead of the elections on 23.04.2026.
- As mandated under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the 5th respondent submitted an affidavit disclosing criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications.
- The petitioner raised objections to the accuracy and completeness of the information disclosed in the affidavit, alleging suppression of material facts.
- The Returning Officer did not reject the nomination at the time of scrutiny, as the objections required detailed verification beyond summary inquiry.
- The petitioner, dissatisfied with the acceptance of the nomination, filed the present writ petition on 20.04.2026, seeking immediate disqualification of the 5th respondent.
Procedural History
- 07.04.2026: Alleged corrupt practice and non-disclosure occurred at the Returning Officer’s office.
- 15.04.2026: Nomination papers of the 5th respondent were accepted by the Returning Officer.
- 20.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 15511 of 2026 filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226.
- 20.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the Division Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Election Commission, Chief Election Officer, District Election Officer, and Returning Officer to disqualify the 5th respondent from contesting the election on the ground of non-disclosure and corrupt practice under the Election Conduct Rules.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a petitioner may invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to challenge the acceptance of a candidate’s nomination on grounds of non-disclosure or false information in the affidavit, or whether such a challenge must be pursued exclusively through an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the 5th respondent’s failure to disclose material information in his affidavit amounted to a corrupt practice under the Election Conduct Rules, warranting immediate disqualification. He argued that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be available to prevent electoral malpractice and uphold the integrity of the electoral process, especially given the proximity of the election date.
For the Respondent
The respondents, including the Election Commission and Returning Officer, submitted that the petitioner’s remedy lies solely in filing an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides the exclusive statutory mechanism to challenge the validity of an election on grounds of corrupt practice or non-disclosure. They relied on binding precedents establishing that writ petitions cannot be used to circumvent the statutory scheme for electoral disputes.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which explicitly bars courts from inquiring into the validity of any election except through an election petition presented in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that this constitutional bar is absolute and leaves no room for alternative remedies, including writ petitions.
The Court then turned to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014) 14 SCC 162, which squarely addressed the issue of affidavit disclosures. The Court quoted the following passage:
"When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the Returning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination... In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of non-disclosure... it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted... the appropriate stage would be in an election petition."
The Court held that the Returning Officer’s role at the time of nomination scrutiny is limited to a prima facie check. Where allegations require detailed investigation - such as verifying the truthfulness of asset declarations or criminal antecedents - the matter must be deferred to an election petition. The Court rejected the petitioner’s attempt to use Article 226 as a shortcut, noting that doing so would undermine the legislative framework established under the Representation of the People Act.
The Court further observed that if the allegations are substantiated in an election petition, the election may be declared void, and criminal proceedings under Section 125A of the Act may also be initiated. The existence of these remedies confirms that the statutory route is comprehensive and exclusive.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner’s remedy lies exclusively in filing an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, within the prescribed time limit. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue his claims through the statutory election petition mechanism.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Election Petitions Are the Sole Remedy for Affidavit Disputes
- Practitioners must not file writ petitions challenging nomination affidavits; such petitions will be summarily dismissed.
- Any allegation of false or incomplete disclosure must be raised in an election petition filed within 45 days of the declaration of results.
Returning Officers Cannot Conduct Detailed Verification
- Returning Officers are not empowered to investigate or adjudicate complex allegations of non-disclosure during nomination scrutiny.
- Their duty is limited to checking for facial completeness and compliance with Form 26 requirements.
Criminal Proceedings Do Not Preclude Election Challenges
- Even if a candidate is prosecuted under Section 125A for false affidavit, the election result can still be challenged only through an election petition.
- Conviction under Section 125A does not automatically void the election; a separate petition under Section 100 is required.
Timing Is Critical
- Petitioners must act swiftly: election petitions must be filed within 45 days of the result declaration.
- Delay in filing an election petition may result in dismissal on grounds of laches, especially if the election has already concluded.
