Pre-existing disqualification at nomination can be challenged only by election petition, not before the District Commissioner.

The petitioner contested the 2025 Panchayat election for Member of 4 No. Palhazi Ward, received 691 valid votes, and lost to respondent No. 5, who received 798 votes.

He alleged that respondent No. 5 had submitted false or forged educational qualification documents and was involved in child marriage.

The petitioner made complaints and representations to election authorities and the District Commissioner, but alleged that no action was taken.

He then filed this writ petition seeking directions to the authorities.

The Court noted that the petition challenged the returned candidate’s alleged pre-existing disqualification and complained of the District Commissioner’s failure to initiate disqualification proceedings.

Whether the petitioner could pursue before the District Commissioner a claim that the returned candidate was disqualified when she submitted her nomination papers.

Whether the writ petition had merit in light of Aysha Khatun v. State of Assam and 5 Others.

Relying on Aysha Khatun v. State of Assam and 5 Others, (2026) 3 GLT 102, the Court applied the rule that where a candidate was allegedly disqualified at the time of filing nomination papers but the nomination was accepted, the alleged improper acceptance forms part of the election process.

It may be challenged only by an election petition before the Election Tribunal, within 60 days from declaration of the result; the District Commissioner has no authority or jurisdiction to decide a disqualification alleged to have existed at that stage.

The petitioner’s allegations concerned respondent No. 5’s eligibility at the time she submitted her nomination, and the petition sought action by the District Commissioner on that basis.

Applying Aysha Khatun, the Court held that acceptance of the nomination despite the alleged disqualification was an election-process issue to be raised by an election petition within the prescribed 60-day period, not through proceedings before the District Commissioner.

Accordingly, the proceedings initiated before the District Commissioner were non est, and the Commissioner had rightly taken no action.