High Court · 2025

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndlaprayingthqtinthe .fr"r..ilnl-". ttrtuo in in" imo",it fibd therewith, the High Court may be writ, order or directionS more particularly a Writ in the nature of ;i;;;t il"nOrrr. declaring tne Jciron of the respondent No 3 assigning serial No 11 to iil; ;;iiiili ino Ltevatin! inelisible oe1s91 io serial No'$ And showins the prJtii Rtihores which is not a honorific term as such is ;;;d;;;;llri". + *it, w-niriv a,oitrary and illegal anJ' vlolative of. Articles 14' 19 3lg ?1^:i^ 'h" ion."qr"ntly direct the.respondent No.3 to remove the apn.iitoiion pf piehx eipnores to the candidature of respondent No'4 'lndia "no " 7 lA NO: 1 oF 2025 petition under Ser:tion '1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supp:rt of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to produce the records concerning the documents filed by respondent No.4 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S SHARATH KUMAR 99t1n-:el_191$f Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRt AVTNASH DEsAt REp., FoR SRI KOPAL SHARRAF Counsgl for the ResponrJent No.4: -- The CCyrt made the foilowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF.IUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA - WRIT PETITION No.5185 of 20.25 i ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justi<n Sujog paut): Sri S. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel for respondentNos. 1 to 3.

2. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief: a 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or directions more particularly a Writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 assigning serial No. 1 1 to the petitioner and elevating ineligible person to serial No.S and showing the respondent No.4 with a prefix Alphores' which is not a honorific term as such is wholly arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2 1 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to remove the prefix Alphores' to the candidature of respondent No.4 and pass such other order or orders that this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper" J The relief indicates that the main grievance of the petitioner is to the word Alphores'which is made as a prefix with the name of respondent No.4. The petitioner, along with the petition, filed a representation dated 05.O1.2025 (Annexure-P1) by projecting that this is the representation for the present gnevance. However, the said representation nowher.e shows any light about the aforesaid grievance. 2

4. It appears that the petitioner has pr:eferred a representation for the aforesaid grievance which is ,Jecided by memo dated |l.l.O2.2O2S (Annexure_p6). This decisron appears to have been taken on second representation of the petitioner dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure_p4) which is somewhzrt on the point. However, the petitioner has not challenged the validity, legality and prol)riety of rejection order dated 14.O2.2A25 in the relief clause of ttre writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no doubt, in vier.l, of bar envisaged in Article g2g(b) of the Constitution of India and the judgment of Supreme rlourt in N.P. ponnuswaLmi v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituencyr, though the scope of interference at this stage is very limited, it camnot be forgotten that the judgmenr in N.p. Ponauswami (strpra) was passed in the year 1952. In the present days, the Election petitions are not decided w: th quite promptitude. In this backdrop, the petitioner cannot f;e made remediless and constitutional Court can interfere at this stage. 6. u contra note, learned Senior Counsel for to 3 submits that the constitution:rl bar respondent Nos. 1 Sounding ' (tssz) 1 scc sa \ // 3 envisaged in Article 32g (b) of the Constitution was considered by a six-judge Bench of supreme court in N.p. ponnuswami (supra) and the said judgment is still a good law. Thus, no interference may be made. 7 8 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Article 329(b) of the Constitution reads thus: - "329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral.matters._ Notwitfr" t.rr ji.rg - -- -* "' anything in this Constitution (aJthe validity of any law relating to the , .. delimitation of constituencies or tt. ,lf"t_."i of seats to such constituencie", ;;d;*;; purporting to be made under article i2? ;; article 328, shail not be called 1., qr."iio., i. any court; a (emphasis supplied)

9. The aforesaid Article czrme up for consideration in N.p. Ponnuswami (supra) and the Supreme Court poignantly held in paragraph Nos. 12 and 25 as under: has been the wide entire candi date " 12. It seems to me that the word "election,, used i n Part XV of the Constitution i n connote the turn a to re v. to SCNSC, ne thro slature. The ons" in that i ure to be the I "condu t of el to th e wide ._t i l b n Article 4 that m eanlnq Can also be read consistentlv into the cther provisions which occur 1n Part XV includi That the word 329 "electic,n" bears this wide meaning whenever we talk ol elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books o_n the subject and in several cases dealing with the mzLtter, one of the questions moot;d is, when the election begins. 25. The conclusions which I have arrived may be summed up briefly as follows: (-l) Having regard to the important fr-rnctions which the legisiatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a rrra tter of first importance thal ele,:tions should be concluded as ezrrly as possible according to time sch edule and all conlroversial matters and all disputes arising out of r:lection s should be postponJ till afte.r the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be uncluly retarded or protracted. (2) In -conformity with this principle. th,e scheme of the election taw in ifris country as well as in England is that no slgnrficance should be attached to ins which does not affect "election" and if anY lrre larities are cotTl mitted whileitisino rogress and thrry belonstoth e category or class which. under the law by which elecl.ions are qoverned,would have the effect of vitiating the 'election" and enablethe person affec ted to call it in question they should be brought up before a Special Tribunal by meialts of an election petition and not be rnade the subject of a dispute belbre any court while the election is rn progress.,, (emphasis supplied) \ r.} :t-'. 5

10. Learned counsel for the parties fairly informed us that the election process is in full swing and voting is scheduled on 27'o2'2o25' In view of constitutionar bar a,d settred raw at this stage, no interference of this Court is warranted. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings/election petition, if he still feels aggrieved by the election results.

11. With these observations, this Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also i' stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-L. LAKSHMI BABU ASS TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. S SHARATH KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. KOPAL SHARRAF Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies To, \ KKS BS ]N - *\-- .'\ /,.1 i: ', \, i \r' 'i: !5 !l i 2- ar.. + 'l- i:. . --:.: gO I1 c HIGH COURT DATED:2 5t0212025 ORDER WP.No.S185 of 2025 DISMISSING T1{E WRIT PETITION I'YITHOUT COSTS a(