Hyderabad: The Supreme Court has kept open the question of law on whether filing of election petition is the only remedy for candidates, whose nomination papers are rejected by the returning officers on the grounds of clerical, typographical or technical errors and whether the writ petitions filed before the Telangana High Court regarding this (under article 226/227) are maintainable or not.
The High Court had earlier rejected such a petition filed by one Shaik Toufeeq, whose nomination paper as an independent candidate was rejected by the returning officer of Malkajgiri parliamentary constituency when it was found that one of his proposers Prof. Radhika Godbale had mentioned the election ID serial number as no. 791 in the nomination paper instead of no. 719.
Challenging the same, Toufeeq approached the High Court to direct the returning officer to accept his nomination and contended that the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 empowers the returning officer to ‘overlook’ clerical and technical errors.
However, the court rejected the petition at the admission stage stating that once a nomination paper is rejected, the Representation of People Act 1951 Act only provides the election petition remedy. Further, the court observed that in the instant case, the action of the returning officer is in consonance with the proviso to Section 33(1) of the 1951 Act as well as the handbook for returning officer issued by the Election Commission of India.
Aggrieved by the High Court orders, Toufeeq filed a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court. He contended that the High Court, under Article 226 and 227 can go for a ‘judicial review’.
The apex court upheld the orders of the Telangana High Court but clearly mentioned that the question of law is kept open.
