Discuss the scope of judicial remedies available to a candidate whose nomination is rejected, in light of Article 329(b).

Article 329(b) says that no election to Parliament or a State Legislature can be questioned except through an election petition under a law made by the legislature [1]. The rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination in 2026, for leaving a case out of her Form 26 affidavit, shows how few immediate remedies a candidate has [2].

Courts cannot step in while the election is running

• N.P. Ponnuswami (1952): "election" covers the entire process, from notification to the declaration of results. So a writ under Article 226 against a Returning Officer's (RO) rejection of a nomination is barred [3].
• Why: elections run on fixed timelines, and a court case at every stage would stall the polls.
• Recent use: in June 2026 the Supreme Court held it had no jurisdiction under Article 32 to hear Natarajan's challenge. It left her free to file an election petition [2].

The main remedy: an election petition after the result

• Section 81, RP Act 1951: any candidate or elector can file a petition in the High Court within 45 days of the election [4].
• Section 100(1)(c): improper rejection of a nomination is a ground for declaring the election void [4].
• An appeal lies to the Supreme Court. This keeps judicial review in place, but only after the election.

Limited room for courts to act earlier

• ECI v. Ashok Kumar (2000): court action that helps the election proceed is not barred. Action that stops or delays it is. Courts must still use this power sparingly [5].

Weaknesses of this scheme

• Justice comes late: a petition can take years, so a candidate wrongly kept out may lose most of the term.
• Wide RO discretion: the law has no fixed test for "suppression of material information", and scrutiny happens under tight deadlines.

Way forward

• Adopt the Law Commission's 244th Report proposal for a one-week gap between the last date of nomination and scrutiny, so candidates can answer objections [6].
• Enforce the six-month target for trying election petitions in Section 86(7) [4].
• The Election Commission could issue guidelines on which omissions count as "material".

Article 329(b) gives up quick relief to protect the certainty of elections, but it does not remove judicial review. Faster election petitions and clear, fair scrutiny rules would protect candidates' rights without disrupting polls. Both serve the free and fair elections the Constitution guarantees.