The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court expounded that any interference by the High Courts entertaining petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issuing directions after commencement of the electoral process has the effect of interpreting, obstruction or protracting the election proceedings, in such a situation remedy should be postponed till after the completion of such proceedings and after the elections are over, the aggrieved candidate would have the remedy of filing an election petition. The High Courts are not supposed to exercise the writ jurisdiction but the same can be exercised only in exceptional and rare cases.

Brief Facts:

The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the Single Judge Bench vide which the Petition was dismissed. 

Brief Background: 

Appellant is a member of the Indian National Congress (''INC"), recognized as a National Party.  Respondent No.1 notified the general election and issued an election program. 

As per the election program, the Appellant and Respondent No.4  had submitted his nomination form together with an affidavit in the prescribed format as required under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (‘Rules of 1961'). 

INC declared Respondent No.4 as the 'approved candidate' and the Appellant as the 'substitute candidate'. 

Respondent No.3 rejected the form of the Appellant on the ground that Appellant was only the substitute candidate. Respondent No.4 withdrew his nomination and immediately the Appellant submitted his representation to declare him as the ‘approved candidate’. However, it was not considered and hence, a writ was filed which was dismissed. Therefore, the present matter. 

Contentions of the Appellant: 

It was submitted that the Returning Officer ought to have given a day's time to the Appellant to get signatures of 10 proposers and examine the nomination form next day. 

It was argued that after Respondent No.4 withdrew his candidature, the form of the Appellant should have been scrutinized and accepted and allowed him to contest the election.

It was further argued that artificial instructions could not curtail the rights of the Appellant to contest the elections. In fact, an independent candidate is required to obtain 10 signatures and not the substitute candidate nominated by the INC.

Contentions of the Respondent: 

It was argued that the High Courts are not supposed to exercise the writ jurisdiction but the same can be exercised only in exceptional and rare cases. Further, that the rejection of the nomination form was never challenged. 

Observations of the Court: 

The Bench found force in the contentions of the Respondent and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 

The decision of the Court: 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal. 

Case Title: Moti Singh v. Election Commission of India & Ors. 

Case No.:  WRIT APPEAL No. 1039 of 2024

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Gajendra Singh, Hon’ble Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari

Advocates for Appellants:  Advs. Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, Shri Jayesh Gurnani

Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Ms. Mini Ravindran

Read More @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :