Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Mr.Anturkar, learned amicus curiae at the outset has submitted that the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. The Returning Officer, Namakhal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist. & Ors., reported in AIR 1952 SC 64, which a decision of a Bench of six Hon'ble Judges, in terms has laid down that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging improper rejection of nomination cannot be entertained.

16. Mr. Anturkar would submit that the decision in N.P.Ponnuswami (supra) is a direct judgment on the point of rejection of nomination paper and is good law as of today. He submits that the subsequent decisions in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, and the decision in Ashok Kumar (supra) are not judgments directly on the point of rejection of nomination papers, hence, the decision in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra), which directly decides the issue, is required to be preferred as it is a settled principle that the judgment is an authority on the point which it decides. He would submit that an inference, even a sng wpst-26 & 28.2021 logical inference, drawn from some observations in the judgment will not be part of the ratio.

17. Mr.Anturkar would next submit that a careful perusal of paragraph 36 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) shows that a writ petition being not maintainable is different from the writ petition not being entertained. Further Mr.Anturkar refers to paragraph 79 of the decision to contend that the Court has identified as to what has actually been held in the said decision. He also referred to paragraph 92 to contend that there cannot be any doubt that the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) confirms as to what has been held in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) in regard to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, not being maintainable against rejection of nomination. It is submitted that perusal of the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) would also clearly indicate that the argument of the petitioners that a window is kept open as seen from the observations in paragraphs 27, 28 and 29, cannot be accepted, for the reason that these observations are about anything in the direction towards completion of election process and not on the subject matter before the Court in the decision in N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), which concerned rejection of the sng wpst-26 & 28.2021 nomination paper. It is submitted that the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) cannot be interpreted to mean that rejection of the nomination paper can be challenged in a writ petition and/or such remedy would sub-serve progress of the election and facilitate completion of election. It is submitted that challenging the rejection of nomination, even if no stay is sought for, would have the tendency to obstruct and protract the election when law allows only one challenge to the election, and that too post election.

18. Mr.Anturkar has submitted that the decision in Ashok Kumar (supra) does not take a different view, as rejection of nomination paper and challenge to the same cannot by any stretch be described as "sub-serving the progress of election and facilitating the completion of election". It is submitted that in fact in both the decisions, i.e., Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and Ashok Kumar (supra), the observations that Article 329 (b) pushes out Article 226 stands confirmed.

19. Mr.Anturkar has also sought to argue a converse proposition as to what can be a legal position if the writ petition under Article 226 is held maintainable against the rejection of nomination form by the Returning Officer. He would intend to make good this submission by referring to paragraph 20 of the decision in sng wpst-26 & 28.2021 N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) and contend that such observations cannot also be inferred to mean that the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) has not laid down as a proposition of law that the remedy under Article 226 is barred against rejection of nomination form.

(4) Where the rejection is made on the ground, intra vires of the provisions of the Rules, but the issue involved is only sng wpst-26 & 28.2021 relating to interpretation of the provisions and not based upon the appreciation of any evidence.

22. It is submitted that in these cases care is required to be taken to ensure that no interim relief should be granted under any circumstances as the grant of any interim relief will result in postponing, interfering and obstructing the flow of election. It is submitted that even if in the above categories the Court is convinced that without granting a stay interference would not be worthwhile, then such writ petition should not be entertained by the Court. In support of his submission, Mr. Anturkar has placed reliance on the decision in regard to principle of interpretation of decision which would be referred to in the later part. Mr. Anturkar would also submit that strict construction of these provisions and the application of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) and Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) is likely to have a hard effect on the candidates whose nomination forms are rejected by the Returning Officer. In this context, Mr.Anturkar would submit that a gloss which is added to the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) be explored and a possibility that some window to be kept open for candidates to approach this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can also be sng wpst-26 & 28.2021 considered. To make good this submission, Mr. Anturkar placed reliance on the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 25 to 30 of the said decision.