In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of the electoral process, the Calcutta High Court has declined to interfere in a dispute regarding the acceptance of a candidate's nomination for the ongoing West Bengal Assembly Elections. Presiding over the case, Justice Krishna Rao emphasized that once the election process has commenced, any judicial intervention by way of writ jurisdiction would amount to an obstruction of the democratic exercise. The court clarified that the appropriate legal remedy for such grievances lies exclusively in an election petition filed after the polls are concluded.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by an independent candidate from the 117–Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency. The petitioner challenged the acceptance of the nomination of a rival candidate representing the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). Allegations were made regarding serious defects in the rival candidate's affidavit, including a missing signature in the verification section and a discrepancy between the date mentioned in the affidavit (April 8, 2026) and the date on the notarial seal (April 7, 2026).

The petitioner further contended that the Returning Officer failed to pass a reasoned order or upload the counter-affidavit raising these objections, which they claimed was a violation of the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India case. However, the High Court maintained that at this stage of the election, the court's hands are tied by constitutional and statutory limitations.

Central to the court’s decision was Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which bars judicial interference in electoral matters except through an election petition. The bench relied on the landmark precedent set in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, reiterating that the word "election" encompasses the entire process from the initial notification to the final declaration of results. Justice Rao observed that "if any order is passed [now], the same will amount to interference with the election process."

The ruling further cited Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which explicitly lists the "improper acceptance of any nomination" as a valid ground for declaring an election void. However, the statute mandates that such a challenge can only be adjudicated after the results are declared. This ensures that the polling schedule remains uninterrupted, preventing the judicial system from becoming a tool for stalling the democratic mandate.

It is important to note that the High Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations regarding the defective affidavit. The court clarified that the petitioner remains free to raise these issues through the proper legal channels post-election. Any future adjudication of an election petition must proceed independently, "without being influenced by any observations made in this order."

This judgment provides much-needed clarity for candidates and legal practitioners navigating the high-stakes environment of the 2026 West Bengal polls. It reaffirms that the Election Commission and its officers have the primary authority during the polling phase, while the judiciary acts as a final arbiter only after the "battle at the ballot box" is over.

As the state moves toward the final tallying of votes, this ruling serves as a reminder of the "non-interference" principle that governs Indian elections. By directing the petitioner to the post-poll remedy of an election petition, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the constitutional priority of ensuring that elections are concluded within their prescribed timelines without judicial secondary-guessing at every administrative step.

This video discusses the constitutional bar on court interference in ongoing elections, helping you understand the legal principles behind the Calcutta High Court's recent decision.