Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 29.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee & Anr. (represented by Senior Advocate Ritzu Ghosal) filed W.P.A. No. 27488 of 2026 seeking a writ of mandamus and other directions against the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer, and other respondents.
  • Respondent No. 5 (private candidate) filed a nomination for the Bye‑Election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly from Nandigram (Constituency 210) on 15 Sept 2026, attaching Form‑26 affidavit declaring age “60+ years” and educational qualification “Class‑X, Chowkhali Ganga Pada Milan Kanya Vidyapith (H.S.), 1965”.
  • Petitioners alleged a “facially impossible discrepancy” between the declared age and the year of Class‑X completion, contending that the Returning Officer failed to verify the affidavit as required under Sections 33A, 33B and 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) and the Election Commission’s instructions.
  • Reliefs sought (a‑e) included: declaration that proceeding without verification violates Article 19(1)(a); mandamus directing respondents to examine and verify the records; determination of any consequence under RPA §§ 36, 125A; preservation of nomination documents; and a reasoned order before the poll date.
  • The Election Commission fixed the Bye‑Election schedule: Gazette notification 09 Sept 2026, last date for nominations 16 Sept 2026, scrutiny 17 Sept 2026, withdrawal deadline 19 Sept 2026, poll 06 Oct 2026, counting 09 Oct 2026, completion by 11 Oct 2026.
  • No objection was raised during the scrutiny on 17 Sept 2026; the nomination of Respondent 5 was accepted. A complaint dated 21 Sept 2026 was filed after scrutiny had concluded.
  • Respondent No. 1 (Election Commission) argued that the petition is barred under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RPA and that the alleged discrepancy does not constitute a “substantial character” defect.
  • Respondent No. 3 (Chief Electoral Officer) contended that the writ does not fall within Section 36(1) of the RPA and cited the 2023 Returning Officer Handbook (clauses 6.9.1 and 6.10.1) stating that technical or clerical errors should not lead to rejection, and false information in a duly filed affidavit does not warrant rejection.
  • Respondent No. 5’s counsel reiterated that the nomination was accepted without objection and that the issue is cognizable only in an election petition under Article 329(b).
  • The Court examined several precedents: Ritzu Ghosal Vs West Bengal State Election Commission (2018), Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury Vs West Bengal State Election Commission (2018), Kisan Shankar Kathore Vs Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014), Resurgence India Vs Election Commission (2014), Mairembam Prithviraj Vs Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (2017), Election Commission Vs Ashok Kumar (2000), Arindam Ghosh Vs Union of India (2026), and Meenakshi Natarajan Vs Election Commission (2026).
  • The Court highlighted that under Section 36(2) the Returning Officer may reject a nomination on a substantial defect, but the defect must be established as such, which is a matter of evidence.
  • The Supreme Court’s observations in Ashok Kumar (2000) were quoted, emphasizing that judicial intervention should not interrupt or delay the election process unless it aids the completion of the election.
  • Article 329(b) bars questioning an election except through an election petition; the Court noted that the writ petition’s reliefs would interfere with the ongoing Bye‑Election.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition (WPA 27488/2026) is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from raising the same grievance in a proper election petition at the appropriate stage of the election process.

Topics: Election Law, Writ Petition