The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition from Aashish Kishor Gadkari who sought intervention after his nomination for the Chembur Constituency in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections was rejected on procedural grounds. Gadkari’s nomination was denied due to missing critical elements including the proposer’s signature and the required oath though the proposer’s name was listed.
Gadkari’s counsel argued for reconsideration under Article 226 of the Constitution which allows High Courts to issue writs claiming there was still ample time before the election for corrections. However, the Election Commission’s representatives countered by citing Article 329 which restricts judicial intervention during ongoing elections and stressed that election disputes are best handled after polls through election petitions. They argued that allowing Gadkari’s request would disrupt the election timeline and potentially impact other candidates.
The division bench led by Justices Arif S Doctor and Somasekhar Sundaresan upheld the constitutional principle that limits judicial intervention in active elections allowing only exceptional cases that facilitate rather than disrupt the process. They ruled that Gadkari’s omissions were fundamental making his nomination incomplete and unsuitable for rectification at this point.
In their ruling, the justices stressed that adherence to election procedures is essential to uphold electoral integrity and timelines and they advised that Gadkari could explore legal remedies post-election.
The Bombay HC’s decision reinforces the importance of procedural accuracy and limits judicial intervention in active electoral processes emphasizing the need for integrity in the election system.
