Madras HC Dismisses Writ Seeking Scrutiny of SC Candidates, Cites Article 329(b) Bar

The Madras High Court held that a writ petition seeking directions to scrutinise SC candidates' nomination papers was barred by Article 329(b) and that no legal vacuum existed warranting fresh directions.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, led by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, dismissed a writ petition on 17 June 2026 that sought a direction to the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu to scrutinise nomination papers filed by candidates contesting from Scheduled Caste reserved constituencies. The petitioner, Arjunan Sampath of Coimbatore, had urged the court to act on his representations dated 30 March 2026 and 1 April 2026, invoking the Supreme Court's ruling in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1580 of 2026, decided 24 March 2026). The bench found the petition barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution and held that the existing legal and administrative framework left no gap requiring fresh judicial directions.

The Dispute Before the Court

Arjunan Sampath described himself as a public-spirited citizen and raised concerns about what he called the infiltration of non-Scheduled Caste candidates into SC-reserved constituencies through fraudulent declarations. His specific grievance was that individuals who had converted to Christianity or Islam continued to hold and use their erstwhile SC community certificates to contest from seats reserved exclusively for Scheduled Castes.

He had submitted representations to the Chief Electoral Officer on 30 March 2026 and 1 April 2026, asking for a deeper scrutiny of nomination papers. When no orders were passed on those representations, he approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus.

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. S. Karthikei Balan, argued that the verification conducted by Returning Officers was superficial — limited to the face of the community certificate — without any substantive inquiry into the candidate's actual religious profession at the time of filing the nomination. He contended that this created an unfair electoral playing field and amounted to a fraud on the Constitution, diluting the political rights of genuine Scheduled Caste citizens who remained within the religions specified by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

Counsel further pressed for specific regulatory guidelines requiring Returning Officers to rigorously vet the religious and caste identity of every candidate in a reserved constituency before accepting the nomination, rather than leaving the issue to post-election litigation.

Two Issues the Bench Identified

The bench distilled the matter into two questions. First, whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to interfere with or dictate terms to the election machinery when an election process is underway. Second, whether any legal vacuum exists in the verification of SC/ST status of candidates that would require the court to issue fresh directions.

Standing Counsel Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, appearing for the respondent, contested maintainability on the ground that the electoral process cannot be halted or modified mid-stream under Article 226. He submitted that the exclusive remedy for challenging any irregularity or false declaration by a candidate is an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, filed after the declaration of results. On the merits, he pointed to the Election Commission of India's instructions dated 2 July 2008 and the Supreme Court's ruling in Chinthada Anand as comprehensively covering the field.

Article 329(b) as the Primary Bar

On the first issue, the bench held that the unequivocal bar in Article 329(b) of the Constitution blocked the petition at the threshold. Article 329(b) provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of a State Legislature shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in the manner provided by the appropriate legislature.

Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 sets out the grounds for declaring an election void. Clause (a) to Section 100(1) expressly covers the situation where, on the date of election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or the Act.

The bench observed that the Supreme Court has consistently held that High Courts cannot use their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interrupt, stall, or micromanage the election process. Any grievance about a candidate's disqualification or false declaration must wait until the conclusion of the election and must be raised solely through an election petition. The writ petition was therefore held to be “completely misdirected and legally unmaintainable at this juncture.”

No Legal Vacuum on SC Candidate Verification

On the second issue, the bench found the petitioner's apprehension entirely misplaced. Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 states in unambiguous terms that no person who professes a religion different from Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. The bench quoted the provision directly, noting that the law on eligibility is clear and settled.

The administrative framework to execute this law was also found to be in place. The Election Commission's instructions dated 2 July 2008 — specifically Paragraph 3 — mandate that Returning Officers, at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, must satisfy themselves that candidates contesting from reserved constituencies genuinely belong to the SC or ST community and must insist on production of a valid certificate issued by a competent authority.

Beyond the ECI guidelines, the bench pointed to Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which confers summary powers on Returning Officers to examine nomination papers and reject any nomination where it is clear that the candidate is not qualified or is disqualified. The bench held that the legal machinery is “fully armed with the necessary powers” to reject nominations backed by fraudulent certificates at the scrutiny stage itself.

The bench also took note of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2026 SCC OnLine SC 466), which the respondent submitted had comprehensively reiterated the earlier position of law, leaving no requirement for any fresh directions.

Absence of Specific Instances

The bench observed that the petitioner had failed to provide any evidence of a candidate contesting the recent elections using a fraudulent certificate, or of a Returning Officer overlooking such a case. The petition rested on a general apprehension rather than a concrete instance of the machinery failing.

If a fraudulent candidate were to slip past the scrutiny stage, the bench noted, the aggrieved party retains an unhindered statutory remedy by filing an election petition.

Order

The Division Bench dismissed W.P.No.13425 of 2026 as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs. The connected interim application in W.M.P.No.14679 of 2026 was closed. The order was made by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari on behalf of the bench.