Madras High Court
T. Kannan vs The Chief Election Commissioner Of … on 17 April, 2026
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8214, 8215 & 8216 of 2026
T.Kannan,
S/o.K.Thayumanavan,
6-3-2, Pajaimada Street,
Genguvarpatty - 625 023.
Theni District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Chief Election Commissioner of India,
Election Commission Of India,
Nirvachansadan, Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu,
Public (Election) Department,
Secretariat, Fort. St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Returning Officer cum District Supply
and Consumer Protection Officer, Theni,
No.200, Bodinayakkanur Assembly
Constituency, Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
______________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records relating to the impugned rejection order made in Proceedings
No.Nil dated 07.04.2026, passed by the 3 rd respondent, and quash the
same as unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently
direct the 3rd respondent to accept the nomination submitted by the
petitioner and to include the name of the petitioner in the list of
candidates for No. 200, Bodinayakkanur Assembly Constituency in the
General Election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly 2026.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Sathiamoorthy
For Respondent(s):Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
Calling into question the rejection order dated 07.04.2026, by
which the nomination filed by the petitioner was rejected, the present
writ petition is filed. A further direction is sought to include the name
of the petitioner in the list of valid candidates for the General Election
scheduled on 23.04.2026.
______________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
rejection of nomination of the petitioner was on the ground that as the
petitioner is working as Superintendent of the District Library, Theni, it
falls under the “office of profit” and therefore, in view of the
disqualification provided under Articles 102(1) and 191(1) of the
Constitution of India, the nomination has been rejected. He further
submitted that the impugned rejection of nomination is beyond the
powers of the Returning Officer, where his power is restricted to verify
only the qualifications as prescribed under Article 173 of the
Constitution of India. It is his further contention that since the
petitioner is employed under Local Library Authority, which is a body
corporate constituted under the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act, 1948,
it cannot be construed as an office of profit under the State
Government and therefore, the rejection of nomination by the 3 rd
respondent is unconstitutional.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
even during parliamentary election in the year 2024, he had filed W.P.
(MD)No.8690 of 2024, but, however, due to want of time as polling by
postal ballot had already commenced, the petition was dismissed by
relegating the petitioner to file an election petition.
______________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
2.3. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in
(i) Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others 1; and (ii)
Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant and others2.
3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
submitted that since the petitioner even as per his nomination is
serving as Superintendent of District Library, Theni, in view of his
disqualification, as he is under office of profit, the nomination has been
directly rejected. He further submitted that a writ petition challenging
the alleged improper rejection of nomination papers is not
maintainable, as the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters
stands excluded by Article 329 of the Constitution of India. To fortify
the said plea, reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in
N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and
others3.
4. It is apposite to refer to the following provisions:
1 (2000) 8 SCC 216
2 (2014) 14 SCC 162
3 (1952) 1 SCC 94
______________
Page 4 of 11https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026“Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India:
329. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral
matters.-
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution—
(a) …
(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the
House or either House of the Legislature of a State
shall be called in question except by an election
petition presented to such authority and in such
manner as may be provided for by or under any law
made by the appropriate Legislature.”
“Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951
100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the
High court is of opinion—
(a) or (b) …; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly
rejected…”
5. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on interpreting the
provisions of the Constitution of India and Representation of the
______________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
People Act, 1951, in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and others held thus:
“20. It was argued that since the Representation
of the People Act was enacted subject to the
provisions of the Constitution, it cannot bar the
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This argument
however is completely shut out by reading the
Act along with Article 329(b). It will be noticed
that the language used in that article and in
Section 80 of the Act is almost identical, with this
difference only that the article is preceded by the
words “notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution”. I think that those words are quite
apt to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court
to deal with any matter which may arise while
the elections are in progress.”
[emphasis supplied]
6. While considering an identical challenge rejecting the
nomination, referring to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, a
Division Bench of this Court in M.Shanmugasundaram v. The Chief
Election Commissioner and others4, held thus:
4 (2011) 4 CTC 766
______________
Page 6 of 11https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026“7. Clause (b) of Article 329 is very clear on this point.
It is manifest that no election to either House of
Parliament or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of State shall be called in question except
by an election Petition presented before the authority
empowered under the law.
8. Section 100 of the Representation of People
Act, 1950, lays down the ground for declaring the
election to be void. One of the grounds for
declaring election to be void is the rejection of
the nomination improperly.
9. In our opinion, the instant case is squarely covered
by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning
Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, (1952) 1
SCC 94 : AIR 1952 SC 64.
10. After giving our anxious consideration, we are
of the definite opinion that the question
regarding the improper rejection of nomination
cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. … ”
[emphasis supplied]
______________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
7. It is trite that once the election process has commenced with
the issuance of election notification, the invocation of judicial remedy
has to be postponed till the completion of proceedings in elections.
8. As such, in view of the constitutional bar and Constitution
Bench judgment of the Apex Court in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning
Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others (supra) and the decision of
a co-equal bench of this court in M.Shanmugasundaram v. The Chief
Election Commissioner and others (supra), we are not inclined to
invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
That apart, Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 stipulates that improper rejection of nomination is a ground to
declare the election void. It is for the petitioner to work out his
remedy at an appropriate stage before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law. Further admittedly, the same issue was already
decided against the petitioner, during the parliamentary election in the
year 2024, as he can only work out his remedy by way of election
petition and therefore, the present petition is not sustainable.
______________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
For the aforegiven reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications
st+and closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
17.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sri
______________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
To:
1.The Chief Election Commissioner of India,
Election Commission Of India,
Nirvachansadan, Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu,
Public (Election) Department,
Secretariat, Fort. St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Returning Officer cum District Supply
and Consumer Protection Officer, Theni,
No.200, Bodinayakkanur Assembly
Constituency, Bodinayakkanur – 625 513.
______________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sri
W.P.(MD)No.10505 of 2026
17.04.2026
______________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis