Sri Hemanna H R vs The Returning Officer & Ors.

a)

Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. ELN.CR/Nomination-04/2026-27 dated 08.10.2026 passed by respondent No.1, rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner searing Sl. Nos. 6, 7 and 18 for election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Bangalore Teachers Constituency, 2026, vide Annexure-K.

b)

Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 authority to reconsider the petitioners nomination papers bearing Sl. Nos. 6, 7 and 18 in accordance with law, after proper consideration of the appointment order, approval of appointment, service records and other relevant material, and to pass appropriate consequential orders, subject to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions governing the election process.

c)

Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to 3 to take such consequential steps as may be legally permissible pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon'ble court, including such steps as may be necessary to enable the petitioner to contest the election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Bangalore Teachers Constituency scheduled to be held on 23.10.2026, if permitted in law.

d)

Pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."

Interim prayer

Pending disposal of the captioned writ petition for final adjudication, the petitioner most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass the ad-interim order:-

a)

Stay the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 08.10.2026, bearing No. Eln.Cr/Nomination-04/2026-27, passed by respondent no.1, insofar as it rejects the nomination papers of the petitioner bearing Sl. Nos. 6, 7 and 18 for election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Bangalore Teachers Constituency, 2026 vide Annexure-K.

b)

Direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to include the name of the petitioner in the list of contesting candidates published in form 7B vide notification No. DPAR 08 CHUVIPA 2026 dated 09.10.2026, produced vide at Annexure-L, and consequently permit the petitioner to contest the election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Bangalore Teachers Constituency, 2026, scheduled to be held on 23.10.2026, in the interests of justice and equity."

"Article 329 of the Constitution of India

329. 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 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;

(b)

no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature."

"10.

The principles laid down in Ponnuswami (supra) has been followed by this Court in all election related disputes and whenever an attempt is made to invoke this Court’s or the High Court’s writ jurisdiction to interject during the process of conduct of election, on every occasion, the Constitutional Court has rejected such an attempt keeping in view the principle contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.

11.

In a recent judgment, this Court in the matter of Poonam vs. Dule Singh & Ors.6, authored by one of us (Atul S. Chandurkar, J.), had an occasion to deal with a similar case concerning non-disclosure of previous conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by a candidate contesting election for the post of Councillor in a Nagar Parishad, to eventually hold that under the applicable rule, every candidate contesting elections is required to furnish information as prescribed in the format under Rule 24-A(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994.

12.

It is vehemently put forth by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi that in a case of this nature where the illegality in rejection of nomination is glaring and manifest, this Court must step in to curb the injustice, otherwise the very sanctity of the election process would be affected. However, this argument cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down in Ponnuswami (supra). If this Court accepts such argument to find out such glaring cases, which are required to be interfered with under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India and the other set of cases in which the rejection is not so improper prima facie relegating them to avail the remedy of filing election petition, this Court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329 of the Constitution of India. We are afraid, any such interpretation, that in some cases this Court can entertain a petition wherein a candidate’s nomination paper has been improperly rejected, while leaving some others to avail the remedy of filing an election petition before the election tribunal, should not be encouraged, being in direct conflict with the law laid down in Ponnuswami (supra).

13.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in view of express bar contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India; therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

14.

Needless to say, any observation made herein concerning the basis of rejection of petitioner’s nomination is only for the purpose of appreciating the facts of the case and nothing contained in this Order shall affect the election petition, should any such election petition is filed by the petitioner or any other person before the concerned High Court and the same shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law."