WP(MD)/10974/2026 of MR. B. DAYANIDHI Vs THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.( MD )No.10974 of 2026
B.Dayanidhi,
Senior Citizen,
Railway Retirement,
No.36, Alakarasan Nagar,
Nagai Road, Thanjavur - 613 001.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Chief Electoral Officer,
State of Tamil Nadu
Public (Elections) Department,
Secretariat, Fort st. George,
Chennai - 600 009. Tamil Nadu.
2.The Returning Officer,
174-Thanjavur Assembly Constituency &
Revenue,
Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2 nd respondent in
R.C.64/2026/B3 dated 07.04.2026 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to accept the petitioner’s
nomination for contesting in the General Elections to the Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly, 2026 from 174-Thanjavur Assembly
Constituency.
For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Devasena
For Respondent(s):Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
Calling into question the rejection order dated 07.04.2026, by
which the nomination filed by the petitioner was rejected, the
present writ petition is filed. A further direction is sought to include
the name of the petitioner in the list of valid candidates for the
General Election scheduled on 23.04.2026.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
rejection of nomination of the petitioner was on the ground that
Part A-7(B)(V) and 8(ii) in Form 26 affidavit were left blank. She
added that the petitioner has disclosed the financial particulars in
______________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
the other columns and merely because one column which is only a
breakup is left blank, the same cannot be construed as non
disclosure. Further, the column in 8(ii) only pertains to format and it
is not a suppression. She further submitted that, in any event,
there is no suppression of fact regarding the actual details that are
to be furnished.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
as per Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the
ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.
However, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected owing to
simple defects and, therefore, the rejection is liable to be set aside.
2.3. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme
Court in (i) Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and
others1; and (ii) Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant
and others2.
1 (2000) 8 SCC 216
2 (2014) 14 SCC 162
______________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
submitted that a writ petition challenging the alleged improper
rejection of nomination papers is not maintainable, as the
jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters stands excluded by
Article 329 of the Constitution of India. To fortify the said plea,
reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in
N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and
others3.
4. It is apposite to refer to the following provisions:
“Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India:
329. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral
matters.-
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution—
(a) ...
(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the
House or either House of the Legislature of a State
shall be called in question except by an election
petition presented to such authority and in such
3 (1952) 1 SCC 94
______________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
manner as may be provided for by or under any law
made by the appropriate Legislature.”
“Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951
100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the
High court is of opinion—
(a) or (b) ...; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly
rejected...”
5. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on interpreting
the provisions of the Constitution of India and Representation of the
People Act, 1951, in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer,
Namakkal Constituency and others held thus:
“20. It was argued that since the Representation
of the People Act was enacted subject to the
provisions of the Constitution, it cannot bar the
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This argument
however is completely shut out by reading the
Act along with Article 329(b). It will be noticed
______________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
that the language used in that article and in
Section 80 of the Act is almost identical, with this
difference only that the article is preceded by the
words “notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution”. I think that those words are quite
apt to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court
to deal with any matter which may arise while
the elections are in progress.”
[emphasis supplied]
6. While considering an identical challenge rejecting the
nomination, referring to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme
Court, a Division Bench of this Court in M.Shanmugasundaram v.
The Chief Election Commissioner and others4, held thus:
“7. Clause (b) of Article 329 is very clear on this point.
It is manifest that no election to either House of
Parliament or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of State shall be called in question except
by an election Petition presented before the authority
empowered under the law.
8. Section 100 of the Representation of People
Act, 1950, lays down the ground for declaring the
election to be void. One of the grounds for
4 (2011) 4 CTC 766
______________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
declaring election to be void is the rejection of
the nomination improperly.
9. In our opinion, the instant case is squarely covered
by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning
Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal , (1952) 1
SCC 94 : AIR 1952 SC 64.
10. After giving our anxious consideration, we are
of the definite opinion that the question
regarding the improper rejection of nomination
cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. ... ”
[emphasis supplied]
7. It is trite that once the election process has commenced
with the issuance of election notification, the invocation of judicial
remedy has to be postponed till the completion of proceedings in
elections.
8. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the defect is not of a substantial character, in view of the
______________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
constitutional bar and Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex
Court in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and others (supra) and the decision of a co-equal
bench of this court in M.Shanmugasundaram v. The Chief Election
Commissioner and others (supra), we are not inclined to invoke our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That
apart, Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 stipulates that improper rejection of nomination is a ground to
declare the election void. It is for the petitioner to work out his
remedy at an appropriate stage before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
For the aforegiven reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
17.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sri
______________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
To:
1.The Chief Electoral Officer,
State of Tamil Nadu
Public (Elections) Department,
Secretariat, Fort st. George,
Chennai - 600 009. Tamil Nadu.
2.The Returning Officer,
174-Thanjavur Assembly Constituency & Revenue,
Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur.
______________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10974 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sri
W.P.( MD )No.10974 of 2026
17.04.2026
______________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis