[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Shirmabhai Khant vs The Election Officer, Danta Taluka ... on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 16-21/04/2026
Pronounced On : 24/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5425 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5427 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5431 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5442 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5490 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5514 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5501 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5764 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5770 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5419 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5426 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5430 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5435 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5440 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5511 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5751 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5423 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5434 of 2026
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI SHIRMABHAI KHANT
Versus
THE ELECTION OFFICER, DANTA TALUKA PANCHAYAT ELECTROL
DIVISION AND MAMALATDAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5425 of 2026:
MR CP CHAMPANERI (5920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w. MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR.
VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5427 of 2026:
MR ANAND M RANPARA (10976) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CP CHAMPANERI (5920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND
MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5431 of 2026:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI (1946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROOPAL R PATEL
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI
DHRUVE AND MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the State
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5442 of 2026:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI (1946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. G. H. VIRK,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w. MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL
PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT
PLEADERS for the State
MS. AISHVARYA GUPTA, for State Election Commission
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5490 of 2026:
MS. KRUTI M. SHAH, ADVOCATE WITH MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the
MR SHUBHAM JHAJHARIA(10231) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, OVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS.DHARTRI PANCHOLI, AGP
WITH MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP WITH MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP WITH
MR. JAY BAROT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5514 of 2026:
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VENU GOPAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5501 of 2026:
MR ANAND M RANPARA (10976) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CP CHAMPANERI (5920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5764 of 2026:
MR DARSHANKUMAR P VEGAD (11612) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 & 3
MS ROOPAL R PATEL for Respondent No.2
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5770 of 2026:
MR ISA HAKIM(10874) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5419 of 2026:
MR CHINTAN M ADESHARA(12794) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PUNIT R DAVE(11920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI
DHRUVE AND MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
MS. AISHVARYA GUPTA, for State Election Commission
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5426 of 2026:
KAUSHAL H PATEL (9328) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY SNEHAL SHAH (13391) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI
DHRUVE AND MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Respondent(s) No.
3 MR. P. K. JANI, SR. ADVOCATE a/w. MS. DHRUMA VYAS, ADVOCATE for the
Objector
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5430 of 2026:
MR ANAND M RANPARA (10976) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CP CHAMPANERI (5920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND
MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5435 of 2026:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI
MS ROOPAL R PATEL (1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND
MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the State
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5440 of 2026:
MR. ZALAK B SUTHAR(18186) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND
MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5511 of 2026:
MR CP CHAMPANERI (5920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5751 of 2026:
MS SANGITA M. CHAUHAN (11842) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GURSHARAN H VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MR JAY BAROT for the
Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5423 of 2026:
DHRUVIK K PATEL (7769) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI
DHRUVE AND MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
MS ROOPAL R PATEL (1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5434 of 2026:
MR ANAND M RANPARA (10976) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CP CHAMPANERI (5920) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER A/w.
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AND
MR. JAY BAROT, ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the State
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the first
batch of writ petitions were heard on 16 th April 2026 and
judgment was reserved. Subsequently, other petitions
were filed and they were heard on 17 th April, 20th April
and also on 21st April and judgments were reserved on
those days. Since common questions of law are involved,
all of them are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners, in these bunch of petitions, were
aspirants in the forthcoming elections scheduled to be
held for various Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Corporations and had filed their nominations for being
elected either as members of the Panchayats or as
Councilors of the Municipalities and Municipal
Corporation.
3. However, the respective Returning Officers, on
scrutinizing their nominations has proceeded to reject
their nominations on various grounds and being
aggrieved of these rejections, they are before this Court
praying that the rejections of their nominations be set
aside and they be permitted to contest the elections. In
some of the petitions, the candidates whose objections to
the nominations of other candidates have been overruled
and the nomination papers have been accepted are also
before this Court.
4. The reasons for rejection of the nominations of the
petitioners or for acceptance of the rival's nomination, for
the sake of convenience, are classified with reference to
Panchayat, Municipality and Municipal Corporations and
are stated in a tabular column:
PANCHAYAT
SCA No Name of the Reason for Rejection of
petitioner the nomination papers
Shirmabhai Khant in (Suryaben Kapurji
relation to his Chauhan) has signed at
candidature for the the place of proposer in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Danta Taluka the nomination form and
Panchayat hence counting it to be a
technical mistake her form
is accepted, and form of
dummy candidate has
been rejected.
5427 of 2026 Vansadiya In the residential address
Hemlataben furnished by the petitioner
Vipulsinh in relation being property no. 593,
to Samari Taluka there was no water closet
Panchayat and/or basic amenity and
hence there was no
compliance of Section
30(1)(dd) of Gujarat
Panchayat Act, 1993 which
disqualified her
5431 of 2026 Ritalben Laljibhai The petitioner, as on
Gadadar in relation 13.04.2026, had not
to Sivdivadar Taluka completed 21 years of age
Panchayat and was therefore,
disqualified.
5442 of 2026 Kalpanaben As on 05.06.2021, the
Sureshbhai Mali in petitioner already had two
relation to Mitha children and as on
Taluka Panchayat 05.07.2024, a 3 child had
rd
been born and hence she
was disqualified under
section 30(1) of Gujarat
Panchayat Act, 1993.
5490 of 2026 Kalavatiben The petitioner had not
Maganbhai Tandel in submitted caste certificate
relation to Valsad at 11.00 A.M. when the
Jilla Panchayat nomination papers were
scrutinised.
5514 of 2026 Priyankaben The petitioner had three
Ileshbhai Metaliya in children and therefore she
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
relation to Limbdi was disqualified under
Taluka Panchayat Section 30(1) of the
Gujarat Panchayats Act,
5501 of 2026 Mansinh Babaji The certificate issued by
Thakor in relation to the Police Inspector,
Dehgam Taluka Rakhiyal was incomplete
Panchayat in nature.
5764 of 2026 Sunitaben Petitioner is aggrieved by
Bharatbhai Katara in the acceptance of the
relation to nomination of the 4th
Banthiwada District Respondent (Bhavnaben
Panchayat Nareshbhai Damor) and by
the overruling of her
objections relating to the
caste certificate of the 4th
respondent
5770 of 2026 Masharubhai The petitioner's
Narsengaji Patel in nomination paper which
relation to Vav- contained the mandate of
Tharad District the recognized political
Panchayat party was rejected while
the mandate of the same
political party in favour of
the 4th respondent which
was in fact, forged, had
been accepted.
NAGARPALIKA / MUNICIPALITY
5419 of 2026 Mori Priyam The petitioner was given a
Hasmukhbhai in mandate by the
relation to recognised political party
Dhagandhra for Ward no. 6 but the
Nagarpalika petitioner had filed his
nomination for Ward no. 7
and was hence rejected by
placing reliance of Rule 8
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
of Gujarat Municipality
(Conduct of Election)
Rules, 1984.
The Petitioner's
nomination did not contain
10 signatures and was
therefore not in
conformity of Rule 7(2) of
Gujarat Municipality
(Conduct of Election)
Rules, 1994.
5426 of 2026 Lakshmanbhai The petitioner had
Lalbhai Rajgor in outstanding arrears due to
relation to Dahod municipality and was
Nagarpalika disqualified under Rule 8
of Gujarat Municipality
(Conduct of Election)
Rules, 1994 read with
Section 11(2)(b) of Gujarat
Municipality Act, 1963
5430 of 2026 Santokben The petitioner along with
Hiteshbhai Makvana her nomination form had
in relation to Tharad given the caste certificate
Nagarpalika of "Santokben Hiteshbhai
Parmar" whereas her
nomination form and
mandate reflected the
name "Santokben
Hiteshbhai Makwana" and
despite a notice given for
clarification on the date of
scrutiny, had not given any
clarification till 3.00 P.M.
5435 of 2026 Arvindbhai The petitioner had been
Chaturbhai Parmar convicted for an offence
in relation to Savli and imposed a sentence of
Nagarpalika more than 6 months, i.e., 7
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
years and the period of 4
years from the date of
conviction, as
contemplated under S. 11
(i) (b) of the Gujarat
Municiplaities Act, had not
been completed, and he
was hence disqualified
5440 of 2026 Khushal @ Mukesh The petitioner had been
Hansraj Joshi in convicted in 2019 and in
relation to Mandvi the Criminal Appeal filed
Municipality by him to the Hon'ble
High Court, the High
Court had only suspended
the sentence and had not
stayed the conviction.
5511 of 2026 Sanjaykhan The objection of the
Haiyatkhan Baloch in petitioner that the
relation to Palitana mandate given to the 2nd
Municipality Respondent was invalid
was overruled and his
nomination papers were
accepted as being valid.
5751 of 2026 Ravi Kanaiyalal Patel In the affidavit
in relation to accompanying the
Visnagar nomination paper, the
Municipality petitioner had not
disclosed that a criminal
case was pending
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
5423 of 2026 Arvindbhai There was a discrepancy
Chaturbhai Parmar in the affidavit filed by the
in relation to petitioner regarding the
Bhavnagar Municipal criminal cases when
Corporation compared to the
nomination form in 2021
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
and the present form in
2026 in as much as he had
indicated the pendency of
one criminal case and
hence the nomination was
liable for rejection
5434 of 2026 Bhupendrakumar In Part 5(b)(1) of the
Chhaganlal Patel in nomination form which
relation to Surat required the petitioner
Municipal had not declared that he
Corporation had been set up by a
recognised national
political party though he
had produced the mandate
of the party and hence his
nomination was liable for
rejection
5. As could be seen from the tabular column, the
reasons for rejecting the nominations are varied. The
learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted with passion that the
reasons for rejections were frivolous, motivated apart
from being arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.
6. Sri. Virk learned Government Pleader, however,
contended that these submissions regarding the various
reasons given for rejection of the nomination could not
considered as the writ petitions itself were not
maintainable and the Court was precluded from
considering the validity of the reasons for the rejection of
the nominations. He submitted that it is settled law, as is
evidenced by a large number of the decisions of the Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Court produced by him, that writ petitions impugning
rejection of nomination papers cannot be entertained at
all in exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Art 226 of
the Constitution.
7. Sri. Virk, basically, relied upon 10 decisions starting
from NP Ponnuswami's case upto Mahipatsinh's case
rendered by the Apex Court to contend that the Apex
Court has forbade the High Courts from entertaining any
writ petition in which the rejection of a nomination is
called in question irrespective of the reason for the
rejection. It is his submission that the Apex Court has laid
down this law and has also reiterated it over and over
again in the past several decades. He submitted that
keeping in mind that there is a constitutional embargo to
entertain any writ petition once the electoral process has
commenced these petitions were required to be rejected
at the very threshold without even considering the
reasons for the rejection of the nomination forms.
8. He also submits that it is also settled in these
decisions of the Apex court, that the electoral process
would also include the stage at which the nomination
appears are rejected. He submits that any interference,
even by the Constitutional Courts, exercising their
extraordinary jurisdiction, which is a part of the basic
structure, is not permitted in the light of the
constitutional bar found in Art 243-O and 243-ZT.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
9. The following decisions were relied upon by the
Learned GP in support of his contentions:
(a) In the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer,
Namakkal reported in Supreme Court Reports 1952;
(b) In the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Shivaji
reported in (1988) 1 SCC 277;
(c) In the case of Manda Jaganath Vs. K S Rathnam
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492;
(d) In the case of Shaji Joseph Vs. V Viswanath & Ors.
reported in (2016) 4 SCC 429;
(e) In the case of West Bengal State Election Commission &
Ors. Vs. Communist Party of India, reported in (2018)
18 SCC 141;
(f) Judgment in the case of Mansukbhai Aatubhai Vala Vs.
State of Gujarat, rendered in SCA No.21417 of 2016;
(g) Judgment in the case of Dilipbhai Chhotubhai Vasava
Vs. State of Gujarat, rendered in SCA No.3922 of 2021;
(h) Judgment in the case of Lalaji Babuji Vanjara Vs.
Election Officer, Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation
Ward 4 and District Development Officer, rendered in
SCA No.6480 of 2021;
(i) Judgment in the case of Mhammedsoyab Abdulrahim
Dal Vs. State Election Commission, Gujarat State &
Ors., rendered in SCA No.16727 of 2024;
(j) Judgment in the case of Mahipalsinh Najbhai Basiya Vs.
State Election Commission & Ors., rendered in SCA
No.1699 of 2025.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners led by
the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shalin Mehta, however,
sought to contend that the law laid down by the Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Court does not absolutely bar the exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Art
226 of the Constitution of India and the Apex court in the
case of Ashok Kumar reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 and
State (UT of Ladakh) vs J & K National Conference
reported in (2024) 18 SCC 643 has held that the High
Court has the power to intervene when there is clear case
of arbitrary and grossly unlawful rejection of the
nominations. They also relied upon three judgements of
the Division Benches of this Court to contend that this
Court has intervened in cases where the nomination
papers have been rejected and have set aside the orders
of rejection and have permitted the candidates to
participate in the elections namely, in the case of
Dilipbhai C. Nathvani v. State of Gujarat Thro The
Secretary reported in 2011 (0) AIJEL HC 226211, in the
case of Dineshbhai Palabhai Patar v. Gujarat State
Election Commission reported in 2016 (0) AIJEL-HC
236829 and in the case of Marutiben Dhudabhai Gamar v.
State Election Commissions reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-
HC 239136.
11. They submit that the reasons given by the Returning
Officers for rejection of their nominations are brazenly
illegal and are actuated by malafides and therefore it is
imperative for this Court to entertain these petitions and
ensure that the right of a citizen to participate in an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
election is safeguarded. They submit that by entertaining
the petitions and by permitting the petitioners to contest
the elections, the electoral process would not be stalled in
any manner and it would only ensure that the electorate
are given the chance to elect them.
12. In the light of these submissions, at the outset, we
would be required to determine whether we can consider
the validity of the rejection of nominations by the
returning officers and whether we can permit the
petitioners to participate in the ensuing elections?
13. The power of the High Courts to exercise their
jurisdiction under Art 226 is all encompassing and limited
only by the restrictions imposed on the High Court by the
Constitution itself. This power of the High Courts has
been explained and detailed in a long line of decisions
rendered by the Apex Court in the past 76 years. It would
be sufficient to say that the High Courts possess the
power of judicial review over any executive action and
strike down any executive action if it breaches either the
constitutional rights or the statutory rights of a citizen.
This power of judicial review by the High Courts are, in
fact, held to be a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. Thus, the power of the High Courts to
invoke its jurisdiction conferred under Art 226 cannot be
denied.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
14. It must also be kept in mind that the power
conferred on the High Courts under Art 226 of the
Constitution would also be circumscribed by the
restrictions imposed on the exercise of this Court and
also on all Courts under other Articles of the Constitution.
In other words, the restriction of the power of the Courts
imposed in the Constitution cannot be disregarded
completely and would have to be respected and should be
construed harmoniously.
15. The High Courts, however, have evolved self
imposed restrictions on the power of judicial reviews and
they may refuse to exercise its discretion if there are
alternative and efficacious remedies available, if disputed
questions of fact are involved, if contractual disputes are
involved, etc..
16. One such principle evolved is the reluctance to
entertain any petition and pass an order which has the
effect of interfering in the electoral process and this is on
the basic principle that the process of election, once
commenced, in a democracy governed by the Rule of law,
should not be impeded as it would affect the right of a
citizen to be represented in elected bodies which govern
the lives of the citizens.
17. Art 329 of the Constitution, which is in the part
relating to Elections and bars interference in electoral
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
matter, explicitly states that the Courts should not
interfere in electoral matters and this Article has been
interpreted to mean that it includes the whole electoral
process commencing the from the publication of the
calendar of events and includes the filing of nominations.
18. The Constitution was amended in 1993 twice, and a
constitutional imperative was created for the formation of
Panchayats, Municipalities and subsequently in 2012,
even for the formation of Co-operative Societies, which
hitherto were only statutory requirements.
19. Part IX and IXA of the Constitution, relating to
Panchayats and Municiplaities, which were inserted by
the above amendments contains elaborate provisions
regarding the constituion of these bodies, their
composition, reservation of seats, duration of these
bodies, the disqualification for being its members, their
powers and responsibilities and their power to tax, their
elections etc.,. In short, these bodies, which are local self
governments, were given a constitutional status.
20. A discussion on all the provisions of these Chapters
may not be necessary, but it would be sufficient to notice
only those provisions relating to the bar on the Courts in
the interference of electoral matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
21. Art 243-O and Art 243ZG in relation to Panchayats
and Municiplaities impose a bar on the Courts in electoral
matters, and they read as follows:
"243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.--
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,--
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article
243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question
except by an election petition presented to such authority and
in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made
by the Legislature of a State.]"
"243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.--
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,--
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article
243ZA shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question
except by an election petition presented to such authority and
in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made
by the Legislature of a State.]"
22. As could be seen from the above, these articles start
with a non-obstante clause and are in two parts. The non
obstante clause would mean that this Article would
prevail if there was any provision which ran counter to its
intent in other Articles of the Constitution. The first part
deals with the validity of a law relating to delimitation of
the constituencies or the allotment of seats. The second
part deals with the actual elections to these bodies. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
both of these cases, the Courts are specifically barred
from entertaining any plea. In fact, in respect of elections,
i.e., Art 243-O (b), it is specifically stated that an election
to these local self bodies can be called in question only by
way of an election petition. Thus, in respect of electoral
matters, there is a constitutional bar for the Courts to
interfere and specifically, in respect of an election, it
clearly states that the only remedy is by way of an
election petition.
23. It may be pertinent to state here that this
constitutional bar for interference by Courts in electoral
matters was not a novel innovation, but it was in fact
found in Art 329 of Part XV (the part relating to
Elections). In fact, the bar imposed under Art 243-O and
243-GT are couched in identical terms.
24. The law on this aspect of interference by Courts in
electoral matters has been the matter of consideration by
the Apex Courts right from 1954 till now i.e. for over a
period of 76 years. The learned Counsel have placed
reliance on a number of decisions and, in fact, all the
learned counsel were ad idem that the interference in
electoral matters is not permitted as a matter of course,
but the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
however, submitted that there were some decisions which
carve out exceptions.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
25. In order to avoid burdening this judgment with all
the citations, it would be better to just consider the latest
decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Sandeep Singh Bora vs Mahindra Singh Deopa
reported in 2026 INSC 105. In this judgment, the Apex
Court, while considering the effect of Art 243-O relating
to Panchayats, has considered the judgment rendered by
the constitutional bench in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami
v. Returning Officer, Namakkal reported in Supeme
Court Reports 1952 and a 3 bench judgment rendered in
2020 in the case of Laxmibai vs The Collector reported
in (2020) 12 SCC 186 and has summarised the position
of law as follows:
"12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we summarise
our conclusions as under: -
I. By virtue of the express constitutional embargo
contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of
India, the High Court is precluded from exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
where a law enacted by the State Legislature
provides for the remedy of an election petition to
redress grievances arising during the course of an
election.
II. The election process cannot be lightly interdicted
or stalled at the behest of an individual grievance.
The right to contest or question an election being
statutory in nature, must be strictly construed and
exercised in accordance with the statute governing
the field. The High Court must, therefore, eschew the
grant of liberal interim reliefs in favour of individuals
and instead remain mindful of the overarching public
interest in ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted
conduct of elections across the State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
III. In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate
and exclusive remedy lies by way of an election
petition. Given the non-obstante nature of Article
243-O of the Constitution, its mandate is required to
be adhered to in both letter and spirit. Where the
statute provides a complete and efficacious
mechanism for redressal, the extraordinary exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
would defeat the very object for which Article 243-O
was enacted as a non-obstante provision."
26. In the light of this clear enunciation of law rendered
after considering the constitutional bar imposed under
Art 243-O and in the context of remedies provided under
the relevant statutes which provided for a mechanism to
challenge elections and specifically in relation to the
interference of the High Courts in Art 226 in such cases,
an argument that this Court can interfere in a case
relating to the rejection of nomination cannot be
accepted. It must be stated here that in the above case
the cancellation of candidature and the interference by
the High Court in permitting him to participate in the
elections was under consideration and the Apex Court, in
fact, relied upon two judgments which related to rejection
of nominations to lay down the said legal principle.
27. The ratio laid down in this judgment will also be
applicable to the bar imposed under Art 243 ZG i.e., the
bar in respect of electoral matters relating to the
Municipalities since Art 243 ZG is identical to Art 243 O.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
28. It may be pertinent to state here that in the light of
this decision of the Apex Court, it would not be necessary
to consider the decisions rendered by this Court in the
matter relating to the rejection of nomination, as the law
relating to the seminal issue relating to the interference
of the High Courts in cases of rejection of nomination
papers has been comprehensively declared in aforesaid
case, i.e. Sandeep Singh Bora (supra) on consideration
of the earlier decisions and also with reference to the
constitutional embargo under Art 243 O and Art 243 ZG.
29. It is not in dispute in these cases, which relate to
rejection of nominations for elections to Panchayats,
Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, all the three
statutes which govern their respective elections,
specifically, provide for a remedy to file an election
petition whenever a nomination paper is rejected i.e., S.
31 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, S. 14 of the
Gujarat Municipalities Act and S. 16 of the Gujarat
Municipal Corporations Act. Consequently, the dictum of
the Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh's case (supra)
that whenever the law provides for a remedy to challenge
an election by way of an election petition after the
election has been conducted, would be attracted.
30. It is, therefore, clear and obvious that the High
Courts should not interfere in electoral matters,
especially in cases where the nomination papers are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
rejected and the parties should be relegated to the
remedy provided in Art 243-O and Art 243-GT and the
relevant laws made in this regard. Consequently, these
petitions will have to be dismissed, and the petitioners
would have to avail the remedies provided under the
aforementioned two articles and the relevant laws made
in this regard.
31. The Learned Sr Counsel, however placed reliance on
the three aforementioned decisions rendered by the Apex
Court and by this Court to contend that interference is
permissible in order to strike a balance.
32. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the Supreme
Court was considering the challenge to an interim order
granted by the High Court in relation to a notification
issued by the Election Commission pertaining to the
mixing of ballot papers of all the polling booths and in
that context it held as follows:
"28. Election disputes are not just private civil disputes
between two parties. Though there is an individual or a
few individuals arrayed as parties before the Court but
the stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial.
Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of
the constituency and the citizens generally. A
conscientious approach with overriding consideration
for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the
democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to
the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a
role of over- enthusiastic activist would do. The two
extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election
disputes.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
x x x
32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up
our conclusions by partly restating what the two
Constitution Benches have already said and then adding
by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the
analysis made by us hereinabove:-
1) If an election, (the term election being widely
interpreted so as to include all steps and entire
proceedings commencing from the date of
notification of election till the date of declaration of
result) is to be called in question and which
questioning may have the effect of interrupting,
obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in
any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be
postponed till after the completing of proceedings in
elections.
2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to
calling in question an election if it subserves the
progress of the election and facilitates the completion
of the election. Anything done towards completing or
in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be
described as questioning the election.
3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders
issued by Election Commission are open to judicial
review on the well-settled parameters which enable
judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such
as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of
power being made out or the statutory body being
shown to have acted in breach of law.
4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the
progress of the election proceedings, judicial
intervention is available if assistance of the Court has
been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the
progress of the election proceedings, to remove the
obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of
evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or
rendered irretrievable by the time the results are
declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction
of the Court.
5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with
caution while entertaining any election dispute
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but
brought to it during the pendency of election
proceedings. The Court must guard against any
attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or
stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be
taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the
courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly
innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for
achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say
that in the very nature of the things the Court would
act with reluctance and shall not act except on a
clear and strong case for its intervention having been
made out by raising the pleas with particulars and
precision and supporting the same by necessary
material."
33. It is therefore clear from the above that the Apex
Court has opined that while avoiding extremes in dealing
with election disputes judicial intervention is available
only to correct or smoothen the progress of elections,
remove obstacles and to preserve a piece of evidence to
prevent its destruction. The Court has, in fact,
emphasized that the Courts should act with caution and
ensure that its intervention should not retard, interrupt
or stall the election proceedings.
34. It cannot be disputed that the rejection of a
nomination paper or its improper acceptance cannot be
brought within the exceptions stated by the Apex Court
and given the fact that a specific remedy of an election
petition is provided, the reliance on the decision would be
of no avail.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
35. In the case of Benedict Denis Kinny v. Tulip
Brian Miranda and others reported in (2021) 12 SCC
780, the Supreme Court was considering a case where
the candidate had provided a caste certificate, which was
being verified by the Scrutiny Committee. The Rule
requires that this certificate was to be accepted
provisionally, but on his being elected, he was required to
produce a validity certificate within 6 months and if he
failed to do so, his election would stand terminated
retrospectively. The Supreme Court in that decision was
also considering the case of a returned candidate whose
claim that he belonged to a Backward class was held to
be untenable and the High Court had granted an interim
order directing that no coercive steps be taken.
36. In the context of these facts, i.e., in which an
election had already been conducted and the results were
declared, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"54.3. The power under Article 226 of the
Constitution overrides any contrary provision in a
Statute and the power of the High Court under Article
226 cannot be taken away or abridged by any contrary
provision in a Statute.
54.4. When a citizen has right to judicial review
against any decision of statutory authority, the High
Court in exercise of judicial review had every
jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by
lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous. The
interim order can always be passed by a High Court in
exercise of writ jurisdiction to maintain the status quo
in aid of the relief claimed so that at the time of final
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
decision of the writ petition, the relief may not become
infructuous.
54.5. It is true that requirement of submission of
Caste Validity Certificate within a period of one year
under Section 5B of Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Act is mandatory requirement but in the facts of the
case before us before the expiry of the period of six
month, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had illegally
rejected the claim necessitating filing of writ petition
by aggrieved persons in which writ petition the
interim relief was granted by the High Court. The
power of the High Court to grant an interim relief in
appropriate case cannot be held to be limited only for
a period of one year, which was period envisaged in
Section 5B for submission of the Caste Validity
Certificate. No such fetter on the power of the High
Court can be read by virtue of provision of Section 5B.
54.6. There is no fetter in the jurisdiction of the
High Court in granting an interim order in a case
where caste claim of the respondents was illegally
rejected before the expiry of period of six months and
the High Court granted the interim order before the
expiry of the period of six months, as then prescribed.
54.7. In the facts of the present case, the
deeming fiction under Section 5B of retrospective
termination of the election could not come in
operation due to the interim order passed by the High
Court."
37. It is clear from the above, the Supreme Court's
decision was rendered with reference to the facts of that
case and did not consider the constitutional embargo in
the context of interference in the electoral process
obviously because the election had already been
conducted and the results had also been declared and
therefore the said decision cannot have any application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
38. In the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and
others v. Jammu and Kashmir National
Confererence, Through General Secretary, reported
in (2024) 18 SCC 643, the Supreme Court was
considering a case wherein the High Court had granted
an interim order directing the authorities to allow the
candidates set up by the political party to contest on the
reserved election symbol which had already been allotted
to the party. In the context of these facts, the Supreme
Court while explaining the requirement of the Courts to
intervene when there were manifestly unjust situations in
existence stated as follows:
"40. As made clear by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the
situation emanating herein is, in a manner of speaking,
unprecedented. With a sense of anguish, it would not be
wrong to say that the instant judgment has been invited
upon themselves by the Appellants. The orders of the
High Court, in our considered opinion, were in aid of
the electoral process, and no fault can be found
therewith."
39. As could be seen from the above, the Apex Court
confirmed the interfence by the High Courts, was
basically in aid of the electoral process and could not
therefore be found fault with. Such a situation does not
obviously exist in these case and in these cases, the
decisions relate to rejection of nomination papers for
which a specific remedy is provided by way of an election
petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5425/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
40. We are therefore of the view that there is no
justification to entertain these batch of petitions in which
the rejection of the nominations of the petitioners have
been rejected and the petitions are therefore dismissed. 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.
41. Writ petitions are, therefore, DISMISSED.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
