Article 329(b) bars writ challenges to nomination rejection during an ongoing election process.

The petitioner’s nomination papers for the Karnataka Legislative Council election from the Bangalore Teachers Constituency were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that, as a grant-in-aid teacher under the State Government, he held an office of profit and was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution.

He sought certiorari to quash the rejection and mandamus for reconsideration and inclusion in the list of contesting candidates; the election was scheduled for 23 October 2026.

The respondents objected that Article 329 barred the writ petition during the election process.

1. Whether Article 329(b) barred the High Court from entertaining a writ petition challenging rejection of a nomination during the election process.

2. Whether Mohinder Singh Gill and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar supported intervention in the circumstances of this case.

Article 329(b) of the Constitution provides that an election to a State Legislature may be called in question only by an election petition presented in the manner prescribed by law.

Relying on N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, the Court applied the principle that courts should not interrupt the election process through writ proceedings and that challenges to election-related decisions must ordinarily be pursued by election petition.

It followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India, which rejected an exception permitting writ intervention merely because an alleged error in rejecting a nomination appeared glaring or manifest.

The Court distinguished Mohinder Singh Gill and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar as arising from materially different factual circumstances.

The petitioner challenged the Returning Officer’s rejection of his nomination and sought orders that would enable him to contest the election while the process was underway.

Applying Article 329(b) and Meenakshi Natarajan, the Court held that it could not create an exception for an allegedly manifestly improper rejection, as doing so would conflict with the constitutional bar.

The cited decisions in Mohinder Singh Gill and Ashok Kumar did not assist the petitioner because they concerned, respectively, election-related action following polling violence and a High Court order concerning an election notification and vote counting—not rejection of a nomination on the facts presented here.

The Court therefore did not determine whether the petitioner in fact held an office of profit; it declined to entertain the challenge during the election process.

It dismissed the petition without granting the requested reliefs.