Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to challenge rejection of nominations in local body elections.

The petitioners were aspirants for various local government positions (Panchayats, Municipalities, and Municipal Corporations) in Gujarat who filed nominations for upcoming elections

Their nomination papers were rejected by respective Returning Officers on various grounds, including technical mistakes, failure to meet age requirements, non-disclosure of criminal cases, disqualification due to more than two children, and failure to provide caste certificates

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to set aside these rejections and to be permitted to contest the elections

The Court primarily applied Article 243-O (for Panchayats) and Article 243-ZG (for Municipalities) of the Constitution of India, which impose an absolute bar on courts interfering in electoral matters, stating that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition

The Court relied on the landmark Constitutional Bench decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal (1952), which defined "election" as the entire process from notification to result

It further applied the principles from Sandeep Singh Bora v. Mahindra Singh Deopa (2026 INSC 105), which clarified that the High Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when state law provides the remedy of an election petition

Additionally, the Court noted the statutory remedies under Section 31 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, Section 14 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, and Section 16 of the Gujarat Municipal Corporations Act

The Court reasoned that while the power of judicial review under Article 226 is part of the basic structure, it is circumscribed by express constitutional restrictions

Articles 243-O and 243-ZG contain non-obstante clauses that override other constitutional provisions regarding the conduct of elections

The Court observed that the term "election" includes the scrutiny of nominations, and any judicial intervention at this stage would retard or interrupt the process

The Court distinguished the petitioners' citations (such as Ashok Kumar and UT of Ladakh), noting that those cases involved "unprecedented" situations or actions "in aid of" the electoral process, whereas a challenge to the rejection of a nomination is a standard election dispute for which a specific post-election remedy (an Election Petition) exists

Consequently, the Court found there was no justification to bypass the constitutional embargo

The High Court is precluded from interfering with the rejection of nomination papers once the election process has started when a statutory remedy of an Election Petition is available

All writ petitions in the batch were dismissed, and the petitioners were relegated to the remedy of filing election petitions after the conclusion of the elections