Mr. Avi Yadav, Ad vs STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR. .....Respondents

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the petitioner?s nomination by the Returning Officer (<RO=)/respondent no. 2, for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (<MCD=) Bye-Elections 2025 for the Naraina Ward, with prayer to direct the respondents to accept the nomination of the petitioner. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the nomination paper of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected, as all the requisite information was properly disclosed in the nomination paper. The petitioner duly disclosed his assets, and that of his family members. He submits that the petitioner had also duly disclosed cost of the agricultural land at the time of its purchase, owned by his wife. The mere fact that approximate current market value of the agricultural land was not mentioned in the nomination form, cannot be a case of a substantial defect, and that the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to rectify the said defect and should have been allowed to fill the figure in the column against approximate current market value. 3. Likewise, it is submitted that non-disclosure of the mature value of the Life Insurance Corporation (<LIC=) Policy in the name of the petitioner?s daughter, cannot be a reason for rejection of the nomination Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.11.2025 14:51:44 W.P.(C) 17367/2025 Page 2 of 25 form. The petitioner had clearly given the LIC Policy Number. However, the petitioner was not aware of its mature value, as the mature value of a policy is not known, till the policy actually matures. For this purpose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon a letter dated 10th November, 2025, issued by the LIC, wherein, it is stated that since the concerned Policy of the petitioner has not attained any paid-up value, its surrender value as on date is >nil?. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further submitted that the scrutiny of the nomination papers took place on 12th November, 2025. Two authorized representatives (<ARs=) of the petitioner were present at the time of scrutiny at 01:20 PM, while the petitioner was also inside the premises where scrutiny was taking place at 02:00 PM. However, no clarification was sought from the petitioner or his ARs with regard to the discrepancies in the nomination form. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Rule 22 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 2012 (<Councillor Election Rules=), to submit that the Scrutinizing Officer (<SO=) cannot reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect, which is not of a substantial character. Further, the SO is also enjoined upon to allow time to a candidate to rebut any objection. Thus, it is submitted that the RO/SO ought to have given one day to the petitioner for removal of any defects and could not have rejected the petitioner?s nomination form on the same day. It is further submitted that the time of scrutiny was from 11:00 AM to 03:00 PM. Therefore, the RO could not have rejected the petitioner?s nomination paper at 02:00 PM, as disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2/RO. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.11.2025 14:51:44 W.P.(C) 17367/2025 Page 3 of 25

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that opportunity to remove a defect in the nomination paper ought to be given to a candidate, as the intent of the scrutiny process is not to reject the nomination form and accordingly, reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner as well, to remove the objection. Thus, there is arbitrariness in the decision of the RO in rejecting the petitioner?s nomination form without granting any opportunity to remove the objection in the said form. 7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that publication of the list of validly nominated candidates on the date of scrutiny itself, i.e., 12th November, 2025, was not proper, as the same ought to have been published on 15th November, 2025, after the specified date of withdrawal of the nominations. Thus, haste was writ large in the entire process. 8. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the RO/SO ought to have recorded in writing a brief statement of her reasons for rejection of the nomination paper, which has not been done in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Clause 6.10.2 of the <Handbook for Returning Officer 2023=, and submits that good practices ought to have been followed in terms thereof. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the affidavits of the ARs of the petitioner, as well as an affidavit filed by an AR of another candidate, to submit that the ARs of the petitioner were present during the time of scrutiny from 01:20 PM till 04:30 PM, along with the petitioner, at the premises where scrutiny was taking place. 10. Learned Senior Counsel also relies upon judgments in the case of Election Commission of India Through Secretary Versus Ashok Kumar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.11.2025 14:51:44 W.P.(C) 17367/2025 Page 4 of 25 and Others1, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Versus Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat and Others2, and Saroj Versus Delhi State Commission & Anr.3, to submit that the present writ petition would be

maintainable and that the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases where nomination forms have been wrongly rejected. He submits that the petitioner has approached the Court immediately and is ready and willing to get his nomination paper scrutinized again. He submits that elections are scheduled to be held on 30th November, 2025 and if name of the petitioner is included in the list of validly nominated candidates, the election process would not be hampered in any manner. 11. Per contra, on behalf of the State Election Commission, i.e., respondent no. 1 and the RO, i.e., respondent no. 2, the present writ petition is vehemently opposed on the ground that the same is not maintainable. It is submitted that in cases of improper rejection or acceptance of nomination paper, the jurisdiction of this Court is wholly barred in terms of Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India, which is pari materia with Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon Sections 15 and 17 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (<DMC Act=) to submit that the petitioner ought to file an election petition in terms thereof. 12. He further submits that while the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not completely barred even after commencement of the electoral process, the same has to be exercised with abundant caution. He