AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Swami, C.J.—This appeal is preferred against the order dt. 25.9.1996 passed by the learned single judge rejecting W.P. 13697 of
1996. The petitioner sought for quashing the order accepting the nomination paper of the 5th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the 5th
respondent does not belong of Scheduled Caste community, nevertheless, his nomination paper filed for contesting the election in the constituency
reserved for Scheduled Caste has been accepted, therefore this is a case in which the Election Officer acted without jurisdiction in accepting the
nomination of the 5th respondent. The learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in A. Swamickan Vs. K.
Venkatachalam and Another, and certain observations contained in paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Maruthu and
another v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in AIR 1990 Karnataka 356 , to which I was a party.
Whatever may be the merits of the case about which we should not and do not express any opinion and whatever may be the view expressed in
the aforesaid two decisions, the position in law after the coming into force of Article 245-A of the Constitution comprised in Part IX of the
Constitution relating to Panchayats, there is no scope left for the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to
interfere with the process of election. Acceptance or rejection of nomination papers is one of the stages of election process. Clause (b) of Article
243 specifically says that notwithstanding anything in this Constitution which includes Article 226 also, 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. It is not in dispute that the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 provides for an election, petition to challenge the election. One
of the grounds of challenging the election, is acceptance or rejection of the nomination. Though we very much appreciate the approach made by
learned counsel for the appellant that there should be some scope left for interference by the High Court in order to ensure that unscrupulous
people will not have their way, however we cannot help in the matter, having regard to the bar contained in Article 243-(b) of the Constitution.
That being so, learned single judge is justified in rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground that election petition is the only remedy to have the
grievances of the petitioner redressed. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and also the C.M.P.