Article 329(b) bars writ jurisdiction over nomination disputes; election petitions are the exclusive legal remedy.

The petitioner, an election agent for an independent candidate, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acceptance of the nomination papers of Respondent No. 5 for the 54 No. Morigaon Legislative Assembly Constituency

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 5 failed to disclose material facts regarding his second wife and her assets in the Form-26 affidavit, violating the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961

Despite an objection filed before the Returning Officer on 25.03.2026, the nomination was accepted without a speaking order

The petitioner sought a mandamus to decide the objection and a declaration that the nomination was invalid due to the suppression of material information

Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no election shall be called into question except by an election petition

Sections 80 and 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which designate the High Court as the authority for election petitions

Establishing that "election" covers the entire process and bars intermediate judicial interference (N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952))

Defining the election period from notification to result declaration (Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000))

Holds that complex allegations of non-disclosure in affidavits cannot be resolved by a Returning Officer through a summary inquiry (Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014))

The court found that because the election notification had been issued, the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) was active, ousting the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226

The court reasoned that the term "election" encompasses all stages, including the scrutiny of nominations, and any irregularities must be addressed via an election petition after the results are declared

Regarding the merits of the non-disclosure claim, the court noted that per Kisan Shankar Kathore, a Returning Officer is not equipped to perform the detailed factual verification required to prove suppression of assets during the summary inquiry stage

Consequently, the court determined that allowing a "two-pronged attack"—one during the election and one after—would unduly obstruct the democratic process

The court dismissed the petition at the motion stage, clarifying that the petitioner's remedy lies exclusively in filing an election petition under Sections 80 and 80A of the RP Act after the conclusion of the election process

No interim relief was granted against the respondent’s candidacy