In a significant ruling that underscores the sanctity of electoral procedures, the Patna High Court on November 3, 2025, dismissed two writ petitions filed by aspiring candidates challenging the rejection of their nomination papers for the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections. Justice A. Abhishek Reddy, who heard the matter, emphasized that once the election process begins, courts must refrain from intervening except through statutory election petitions.
Both petitions one by Sweta Suman from the Mohania (SC) constituency and the other by Rakesh Kumar Singh from Ghosi constituency were heard together as they raised common legal issues concerning nomination rejection during ongoing elections.
Background
Sweta Suman had filed her nomination for the Scheduled Caste–reserved Mohania Assembly constituency, enclosing her caste certificate. However, her papers were rejected after the local Circle Officer questioned the genuineness of her certificate. She alleged that the Returning Officer neither supplied her a copy of the objection nor gave her a fair hearing before disqualifying her nomination.
Similarly, Rakesh Kumar Singh’s nomination for Ghosi constituency was rejected on whimsical grounds, according to his petition, without even furnishing a rejection order. Both petitioners contended that the rejection violated the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the principles of natural justice.
Senior Advocate S.B.K. Mangalam, appearing for both petitioners, argued that the decisions were politically motivated. He said the Election Officer had acted in a biased and arbitrary manner, influenced by extraneous considerations.
He pointed out,
"The petitioner was not even given the basic opportunity to respond to the objections. Such actions strike at the root of fairness in electoral scrutiny."
Respondents Arguments
Counsel for the Election Commission of India, Advocate Siddhartha Prasad, strongly objected to the maintainability of the petitions. He argued that the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot entertain challenges to electoral processes after notification of elections.
He cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference during the election process, and said the only remedy for an aggrieved candidate is to file an election petition after results are declared.
"The elections are scheduled for November 11. EVMs have already been dispatched. Any interim order now would derail the process," he submitted.
The Advocate General of Bihar, P.K. Shahi, appearing for the State, echoed this stance, reminding the court that once the election schedule is notified, judicial restraint is not just expected it is constitutionally mandated.
Court's Observations
Justice Reddy noted that both cases raised the same question whether the High Court could intervene under Article 226 in matters related to rejection of nominations once the election process had started. The Court answered in the negative.
Quoting Article 329(b) and Sections 80 and 100(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Court explained that any election dispute, including rejection of nomination, can only be challenged through an election petition filed after the results.
"The Constitution and the election laws make it abundantly clear that once the process has begun, the only remedy available to a candidate aggrieved by rejection of nomination is to file an election petition," the bench observed.
The Court referred to several Supreme Court rulings, including N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), reaffirming that judicial interference during an ongoing election could delay or derail the democratic process.
Justice Reddy remarked,
"If courts were to entertain such writs, it would create conflicting positions between pre-poll and post-poll stages, something the framers of the Constitution explicitly avoided."
Decision
Concluding that both petitions were not maintainable, the Court declined to interfere. It noted that granting any direction to accept the nominations would effectively amount to allowing the writs without a full contest or counter-affidavit, bypassing statutory remedies.
"In all fairness, any such order would directly affect the election process and delay its completion," Justice Reddy stated.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed both petitions, clarifying that the petitioners are free to approach the appropriate forum through election petitions after the election results.
"This Court has not gone into the merits of the case," the order concluded, "and all questions are left open for the competent tribunal."
Case Title: Sweta Suman v/s ECI and Others AND Rakesh Kumar Singh v/s ECI & Others