Your Nomination Was Rejected. Article 32 Is Not The Remedy.
A candidate whose nomination was rejected for not disclosing a pending criminal case came straight to the Supreme Court. It sent her to the election petition route, as it has since Ponnuswami.
The petition under Article 32 was dismissed as not maintainable. Article 329(b) keeps the courts out of the conduct of an election while it is under way, and the principle in Ponnuswami has been followed in all election-related disputes. The Court declined to carve out an exception for improperly rejected nominations while leaving others to the election tribunal. Nothing in the order affects an election petition, which may still be filed and will be decided on its own merits.
- Article 329(b) is the barrier, and it applies while the election process is on.
- No exception for rejected nominations. Carving one out would be inconsistent, and the Court refused.
- The remedy is an election petition before the High Court, after the election.
- The door is left open — the order expressly does not affect any election petition later filed.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 643
- Reported
- [2026] 7 S.C.R. 303
- Case
- WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/766/2026
- Decided
- 11 June 2026
- Outcome
- Petition dismissed as not maintainable
What happened
The petitioner, a candidate, filed her nomination. It was rejected on the ground that her Form-26 affidavit did not disclose a pending criminal case, and so suppressed material information and was incomplete.
She approached the Election Commission, which she says passed no order, and then came to the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Why the Court would not hear it
The principle in Ponnuswami has been followed in all election-related disputes, and wherever an attempt is made to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or a High Court to interject during the conduct of an election, the constitutional court has rejected it, keeping Article 329(b) in view.
The Court also refused to create a category. An interpretation under which it could entertain a petition where a nomination had been improperly rejected, while leaving others to the election tribunal, should not be encouraged.
The petition was dismissed, with the express clarification that nothing in the order affects an election petition, should one be filed by the petitioner or anyone else before the High Court.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can I challenge a rejected nomination in the Supreme Court?
No. Article 329(b) bars interference during the conduct of an election, and the Supreme Court dismissed such a petition as not maintainable.
What is the remedy then?
An election petition before the High Court after the election. The Court expressly left that route open.
If a nomination is rejected
- Do not file under Article 32 or Article 226 while the election is running. Article 329(b) will meet you at the door.
- Prepare the election petition instead, and note the limitation period for filing it before the High Court.
- Get the Form-26 affidavit right at source — non-disclosure of a pending case is what caused the rejection here.
- Keep the record of any representation to the Election Commission; it goes into the election petition, not into a writ.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 643, [2026] 7 S.C.R. 303, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/766/2026, decided 11 June 2026 by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in