Election petition challenging rejection of nomination is maintainable even if specific grounds are not enumerated in the rules.

The State of U.P. issued a notification for the election of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Saharanpur, reserved for the OBC (Woman) category.

The Petitioner (Munni Devi) was declared elected unopposed on 10.07.2021 after the nomination of Respondent No. 6 (Smt. Babli) was rejected by the Returning Officer during scrutiny.

The rejection was based on non-compliance with Clause 6(a) of the State Election Commission’s circular dated 05.07.2021, as the photographs on the nomination form were not self-attested by the candidate, proposer, or seconder.

Respondent No. 6 filed an Election Petition (No. 217 of 2021) before the District Judge/Election Tribunal, Saharanpur, alleging that she was denied the opportunity to rectify the defect while the Petitioner was permitted to do so.

The Tribunal, via order dated 20.09.2023, declared the Petitioner's election null and void.

The Petitioner challenged this order, primarily arguing that an election petition is not maintainable against the rejection of a nomination under the 1994 Rules.

Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution mandates that election disputes be raised only via election petitions.

Rules 35, 36, and 37 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, provide that the term "ground or grounds" is wide and does not exhaustively list or restrict grounds for challenge.

In Anil Kumar v. Smt. Suchita (2009), it was held that Rule 33/35 is of wide amplitude and includes challenges to the acceptance/rejection of nominations.

Rule 11(4) of the 1994 Rules prohibits the rejection of nomination papers for technical defects not of a substantial character.

The Court held that because Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules does not specify limited grounds, the "improper rejection of nomination" is a valid ground for an election petition, distinguishing this from statutes with restrictive lists.

The Court observed that neither the Act, the Rules, nor the 05.07.2021 Circular explicitly provided for the "extreme act" of rejection for failing to self-attest a photograph, characterizing it as a technical rather than a substantial defect under Rule 11(4).

The Court identified a procedural oversight by the Tribunal regarding two critical documents (Paper No. 33-A and 25-C/12) asserting that Respondent No. 6 was indeed given an opportunity to rectify the defect but failed to do so.

The Court reasoned that since the Tribunal failed to consider these records, which were part of the proceedings, the findings on discrimination and denial of opportunity were flawed.

The Tribunal's order could not be sustained due to the non-consideration of material evidence regarding the offer of opportunity to correct the defect; the High Court partially allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 20.09.2023, and remitted the matter back for a fresh order.