SC dismisses plea of independent candidate from Banka against cancellation of his nomination for LS polls

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea of an independent candidate from Banka parliamentary constituency in Bihar, who claims that his nomination was “illegally and arbitrarily” cancelled by the Returning Officer in the ensuing Lok Sabha Elections, 2024.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala remarked that if it starts entertaining petitions against rejection of nomination papers there will be “chaos”.
“The remedy lay in filing election petitions against such rejection of nomination papers and not in approaching the apex court with the grievance,” the bench said.
“There will be chaos if we start entertaining petitions under Article 32 (it confers the right to constitutional remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights) under the Constitution against rejection of the nomination papers,” said the bench.
It, however, permitted lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava, appearing for Jawahar Kumar Jha, whose nomination was rejected, to seek appropriate legal remedy.
The petitioner claimed that his nomination was “illegally and arbitrarily” cancelled by the Returning Officer.
The petition urged the top court to curb the arbitrary and malafide exercise of discretion by the Election Returning Officers across India in rejecting nomination papers of the candidates.
Direct the Election Returning Officers across India to “mandatorily provide a reasonable opportunity” of at least a day to every candidate to cure every defect marked in the election nomination papers, the plea urged.
It further sought direction to quash and set aside the press release dated April 5, 2024, issued by the Public Relation Office, Banka, vide which the nomination of the Jha was rejected.
Declare Jha as a valid candidate for contesting the upcoming parliamentary General Elections 2024 to be held on April 26, 2024, at the Banka 27 parliamentary constituency, the petitioner asked.
“Issue urgent appropriate writ, order or direction to specifically define “the defects of substantial character” within the meaning of Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” the petition stated