The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of a candidate’s nomination for the Nandigram Assembly by-election, where the petitioners alleged an apparent discrepancy between the candidate’s declared age and the year in which she claimed to have passed Class X.
Justice Krishna Rao delivered the judgment on September 29, 2026, holding that deciding the issue at this stage of the ongoing election process would directly affect the election.
Background
The case arose from the nomination filed on September 15, 2026, for the Nandigram Assembly constituency. In her Form 26 affidavit, the private respondent declared her age as “60+ Years” and stated that she had completed Class X from Chowkhali Ganga Pada Milan Kanya Vidyapith in 1965.
The petitioners argued that the two declarations appeared inconsistent and contended that the Returning Officer should have examined the issue while scrutinising the nomination. They relied on Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and argued that the alleged discrepancy concerned the information available to voters.
The Election Commission and other respondents opposed the plea, pointing out that scrutiny had already been completed on September 17, 2026, without any objection being raised at that stage. They also argued that questioning the accepted nomination during the election process was barred by the constitutional scheme governing elections.
The Court noted that the election schedule had already progressed, with scrutiny completed and the nomination accepted. Referring to the Supreme Court’s principles in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, the Court observed that judicial intervention during an election must not interrupt or obstruct the ongoing process.
The Court also noted that whether the alleged defect in the affidavit was of a substantial character was a matter requiring evidence. It referred to Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, which provides a statutory mechanism for challenging an election on specified grounds, including improper acceptance of a nomination.
The Court further observed:
“The petitioner No. 2 has not prayed for any relief with regard to the election process but if at this stage, this Court will decide the issue raised by the petitioner No. 2 with regard to the nomination papers of the respondent no. 5, the same will directly affects the present election process.”
Justice Krishna Rao dismissed WPA No. 27488 of 2026. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioners from raising the issue through an election petition at the appropriate stage.
Case Details:
Case Title: West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee & Anr. v. Election Committee of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA No. 27488 of 2026
Judge: Justice Krishna Rao
Decision Date: September 29, 2026
