'No writs after polls begin': Supreme Court rejects Meenakshi Natarajan's plea

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, ruling that courts cannot entertain su...

What Happened

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, ruling that courts cannot entertain such petitions once the election process has commenced.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar invoked Article 329 of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the conduct of elections.
The petitioner's nomination had been rejected by the Returning Officer on grounds of alleged non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in the nomination affidavit.
The Solicitor General cited a precedent in which the Supreme Court had similarly refused to entertain a challenge against rejection of nomination papers during an ongoing election process.
The Court clarified that the appropriate remedy is to file an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, after the conclusion of the electoral process — not a writ under Articles 32 or 226.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 329 — Constitutional Bar on Judicial Review of Elections

Article 329 of the Constitution of India bars courts from interfering with electoral matters during the ongoing election process. It contains two important clauses: (a) no law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats can be called into question in any court; and (b) no election to either House of Parliament or a State Legislature can be questioned except by way of an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided by the appropriate legislature.

Article 329(b) creates a post-election remedy — once results are declared, the election may be challenged only through an election petition before the High Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Courts cannot issue writs under Articles 32 (Supreme Court) or 226 (High Court) to halt or question an ongoing election.
The bar applies from the moment the election notification is issued until the declaration of results — covering nomination, scrutiny, withdrawal, polling, and counting.
The purpose is to prevent delays in the democratic process and avoid judicial paralysis of elections.

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court applied Article 329(b) to reject the writ petition, confirming that rejection of a nomination paper — even if allegedly erroneous — cannot be challenged by writ during an active election process. The remedy lies only in an election petition after the election concludes.

N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal (1952) — Landmark Precedent

This 1952 Supreme Court judgment is the foundational precedent on Article 329 and the bar on writ jurisdiction during elections. The case arose when a candidate challenged the rejection of his nomination paper through a writ petition, which the Supreme Court refused to entertain.

The Court held that the term "election" in Article 329(b) encompasses the entire process from notification to declaration of results — not just the act of polling.
Any defect at any stage — including rejection of nomination — can only be remedied through an election petition after the election, not through interlocutory judicial intervention.
This ruling established the principle that election law creates a self-contained code, and writ jurisdiction is excluded during the currency of elections.
The judgment balances two competing interests: the right to fair elections and the imperative of timely completion of the democratic process.

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court relied on this precedent in the 2026 case to refuse writ jurisdiction, illustrating how a 74-year-old ruling continues to govern the boundaries of judicial review in election law.

Rajya Sabha Elections — Indirect Election Process

Rajya Sabha elections are fundamentally different from direct Lok Sabha elections. Members of the Rajya Sabha are elected indirectly by elected members of State Legislative Assemblies (and Union Territories with legislatures) through the single transferable vote method of proportional representation.

The constitutional basis is Article 80, which sets the composition of the Rajya Sabha.
The Election Commission of India supervises and conducts Rajya Sabha elections, and nomination papers are filed with the Returning Officer appointed by the EC.
Grounds for rejection of a nomination paper include non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in the affidavit (Form 26), which is mandatory under the Representation of the People Act and Supreme Court directions.
The Rajya Sabha is a permanent house — it is never dissolved, with one-third of members retiring every two years.

Connection to this news: The case arose from a Rajya Sabha election in Madhya Pradesh, illustrating how even indirect elections to Parliament are fully covered by Article 329's bar. The same constitutional safeguards and election petition remedy apply as in direct elections.

Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Election Petitions

The RPA 1951 is the statutory framework for conducting elections and adjudicating election disputes. It is enacted under Article 327 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to make laws for elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.

Section 80 of the RPA 1951 provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the Act.
Section 81 specifies that an election petition must be presented within 45 days of the declaration of results.
Section 100 enumerates grounds on which an election can be declared void — including corrupt practices and non-compliance with constitutional or statutory provisions.
Election petitions are heard by the High Court of the state concerned; appeals lie to the Supreme Court.
The remedy is post-election and cannot provide interim relief during the election process itself.

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to avail of the election petition remedy under the RPA 1951 — reinforcing that this statute is the exclusive channel for contesting election-related grievances, including nomination rejections.

Key Facts & Data

Article 329 is in Part XV of the Constitution, which deals with Elections (Articles 324–329A).
Part XV also houses Article 324 (superintendence of elections vested in the Election Commission) and Article 326 (elections on the basis of adult suffrage).
The bar under Article 329(b) applies to all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures — including Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and Vidhan Parishad.
Pre-election challenges (before the notification is issued) may be maintainable through writ petitions — the bar kicks in only after the election process formally begins.
Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents in a nomination affidavit is a ground for rejection; it is also a ground for declaring an election void under Section 100 RPA 1951 if the non-disclosure was intentional.
The Court granting liberty to file an election petition means the petitioner is not without remedy — the constitutional scheme offers redress, just not at the interim stage.