The Gujarat High Court on Friday dismissed 18 petitions challenging the rejection of candidates' nomination papers and the acceptance of rival nominations for local body elections. The court ruled that such disputes cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution once the electoral process has commenced.
Petitions Filed Across Multiple Locations
The petitions were filed by candidates whose nominations were rejected at Danta, Samari, Sivdivadar, Mitha, Valsad, Limbdi, Dehgam, Banthiwada, Vav-Tharad, Dhrangadhra, Dahod, Tharad, Savli, Mandvi, Palitana, Visnagar, Bhavnagar, and Surat. The rejections were based on various grounds, including violations of the three-child rule, missing caste certificates, incomplete police certificates, arrears due to municipalities, convictions in criminal cases, non-disclosure of pending cases, mismatches in mandate forms, and defects in proposer signatures.
Petitioners Alleged Arbitrary Action
Challenging the rejection of their nominations and the acceptance of opponents' nominations in some cases, the petitioners contended that the returning officers acted arbitrarily, illegally, and with mala fide intent. They sought the high court's intervention to enable them to contest the polls.
Government Opposed Petitions
Government pleader G H Virk opposed the pleas, arguing that the Constitution bars court interference in electoral matters. He stated that candidates must seek relief through election petitions after polling, as per the prescribed legal remedy.
Court Cites Constitutional Bar
The bench comprising Justice N S Sanjay Gowda and Justice J L Odedra cited the Supreme Court's ruling, reaffirming that Articles 243O and 243ZG create an express constitutional embargo on writ jurisdiction in panchayat and municipal election disputes where statutory election-petition remedies exist.
Alternative Remedy Available
Dismissing the petitions, the bench observed: "It is needless to state that the petitioners would always have the remedy of filing an election petition after the elections are conducted in the manner prescribed under the relevant laws." The court emphasized that the electoral process must proceed without judicial interruption, and candidates can challenge the outcome through election petitions as per statutory provisions.
