Patna, November 6, 2025 (Indus Zone Media):
In a significant development ahead of the Bihar Assembly Elections 2025, the Patna High Court has dismissed petitions filed by RJD candidate Sweta Suman and LJP candidate Rakesh Kumar Singh, both challenging the rejection of their nomination papers.
The decision was delivered by Justice A. Abhishek Reddy, who emphasized that once the election process begins, courts should refrain from interfering — citing a constitutional bar under Article 329(b) of the Indian Constitution and the statutory remedies provided under Sections 80 and 100(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).
Court Says Writ Petitions Not Maintainable During Ongoing Election Process
The High Court clarified that any grievance related to the rejection of nomination papers can only be challenged through an election petition after the election process concludes, not via a writ petition under Article 226.
Justice Reddy observed:
“If any interim or final orders are passed at this stage, it would directly affect the election process and have the effect of delaying or protracting it, which has already commenced.”
The bench held that once the Election Commission issues a notification for polls, the process officially begins, and judicial interference could disrupt the democratic timetable.
Background: Sweta Suman and Rakesh Kumar Singh’s Petitions
Sweta Suman, contesting from Mohania constituency on an RJD ticket, had her nomination rejected by the Election Officer, who cited doubts about the authenticity of her Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate based on a report from the Circle Officer, Durgawati.
Suman argued that her caste certificate was genuine and that the rejection was arbitrary. However, the High Court ruled that such issues must be addressed through post-election legal remedies, not through pre-election intervention.
Similarly, Rakesh Kumar Singh, a Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) candidate from Ghosi constituency, alleged that his nomination was rejected without a valid reason and that he was not provided with an official copy of the rejection order. His plea too met the same fate.
Legal Basis: Article 329(b) and the RP Act
Citing precedents, the Patna High Court reinforced that Article 329(b) explicitly bars courts from interfering with the electoral process once it has begun.
The court referred to landmark judgments including:
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) 1 SCC 94, and
Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000) 8 SCC 216,
which both underline that challenges related to nominations or electoral irregularities should only be raised after elections conclude, through an election tribunal.
“If High Courts interfere at the pre-polling stage, it could lead to conflicting decisions between the judiciary and the election tribunal — something the Constitution clearly aimed to avoid,” the bench noted.
Why the Court Dismissed the Petitions
The High Court held that directing election officers to accept nominations at this point would amount to bypassing the statutory process and could delay the entire Bihar election schedule. The court reiterated that:
“Even if the rejection appears arbitrary or legally incorrect, the only lawful course is to challenge it through an election petition after the polls.”
Thus, both petitions were dismissed, confirming the Election Commission’s authority and the constitutional framework designed to keep elections free from judicial delays.
Advocates Who Appeared in the Case
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate S.B.K. Mangalam; Advocates Awnish Kumar and Vikash Kumar Singh.
For the Respondents: Advocate General P.K. Shahi; Advocates Siddhartha Prasad, Sanjiv Kumar, and Bindhyachal Rai.
Legal Takeaways
Article 329(b) prevents courts from interfering once the election process begins.
Rejected nominations can only be contested via post-election petitions.
Courts must maintain the sanctity of election timelines to ensure democratic continuity.
Case Reference
Case Title: Sweta Suman v. Election Commission of India
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17396 of 2025
Judgment Date: November 3, 2025
