KOCHI: Opposing the petitions filed by BJP candidates in Guruvayur and Thalassery assembly seats challenging the rejection of their nomination papers by the respective returning officers, the Election Commission on Sunday informed the Kerala High Court that courts are barred from interfering in the poll process once the elections are declared.
When the petitions came up for hearing, Deepu Lal Mohan, counsel for the commission, said Article 329 (b) of the Constitution stated that no election, either to parliament or a state assembly, shall be called into question except by an election petition. The election petition could be filed only after declaring the results.
The petition was filed by BJP’s Kannur district president N Haridasan, NDA candidate in Thalassery constituency, and Mahila Morcha state president and advocate Nivedida Subramanian, candidate from Guruvayur.
Justice N Nagaresh directed the Election Commission to respond to the allegations levelled by the petitioners and adjourned the case to Monday. The court considered the petitions in a special sitting following the request of the rejected candidates.
The BJP candidates alleged that the commission has granted candidates time in Piravom and Kondotty to rectify defects in the nomination papers. This shows the dual stand taken by the election authorities. The court asked the commission why it has granted additional time for some candidates to rectify the defects in the documents submitted along with the nomination.
Returning officers take action depending on the colours of flags, said K Ramkumar, senior counsel who appeared for Nivedida, said. Rejecting the nomination papers solely on the ground that the official intimation by the party president in Form B of the Conduct of Election Rules, was not submitted at the time of scrutiny is wrong.
The returning officer acted outside his jurisdiction by ignoring Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, which clearly says that the defects in Form A or B are not “fatal” to the nomination. Forms A and B have nothing to do with the nomination and they are relevant only when allotting symbols to candidates. The petitioner has been robbed of her statutory right to contest the election without any justification by misusing the power, the counsel said.
S Sreekumar, senior advocate who appeared for Haridasan, said his client had produced Forms A and B along with the nomination. The only defect noted was in Form A as the signature of the BJP national president was not there. Though his client had sought to bring Form A after rectifying the defect, it was not allowed. It was only a curable defect. The returning officer has not applied his mind and the nomination is never rejected on such technical grounds.