Calcutta HC Reserves Order on Plea Over Nandigram Candidate’s Affidavit

The Calcutta High Court has reserved its order on a petition filed by the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee alleging a discrepancy in the election affidavit of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Nandigram Assembly bypoll candidate Hasirani Rath, between her stated age and the year in which she claims to have passed her Class 10 examination.

Justice Krishna Rao heard the matter, West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee v. Election Commission of India, and reserved the verdict. The allegations remain contested and untested, and the court is yet to pronounce its decision. The Nandigram bypoll is scheduled for October 6, with counting on October 9.

The Alleged Discrepancy

Appearing for the Congress, Senior Advocate Ritzu Ghosal submitted that Rath’s election affidavit states that she is over 60 years old, while another part of the same affidavit records that she passed the Madhyamik (Class 10) examination in 1965 particulars he contended could not be reconciled.

“Either her age or her birth date has to be seen. One of it [sic] is correct,” Ghosal argued, submitting that if the stated age was correct, the educational record would require verification, and if the educational record was correct, the age would have to be examined.

Ghosal was clear that the Congress was not, at this stage, seeking to stall the election or cancel Rath’s candidature, but was questioning the discharge of statutory duties by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the returning officer.

“I have not asked for cancellation. I am not putting a spanner in the works,” he submitted, adding, “I am not on her candidature. I am on the conduct of the Election Commission.”
He argued that the returning officer was required to scrutinise the nomination papers, and that the alleged discrepancy was an “error apparent” that could have been noticed during statutory scrutiny.
Ghosal also acknowledged that the party had approached the court after the statutory scrutiny had already taken place.

“Admittedly, I am out of time. I cannot challenge [it]. But what was the Election Commission doing?” he submitted. The court, for its part, questioned whether calling for the election records at this stage could itself have an impact on the electoral process.

‘Won’t Affect the Outcome’: ECI and Respondent Push Back

Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondent argued that any objection to the nomination papers had to be raised at the appropriate stage, and that the Congress, being a political party, could not now challenge the scrutiny process.

It was contended that an incorrect declaration regarding age, by itself, could not result in the cancellation of a nomination unless it affected the candidate’s qualification to contest.
“If I make a misdeclaration of my age, it is not a substantial issue,” counsel submitted, arguing that since there is no educational or age qualification of the kind alleged that would affect Rath’s eligibility to contest the Assembly election, the alleged discrepancy would not materially affect the outcome.

Senior Advocate D S Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the Congress had raised the issue only after the period for objections had expired. While the returning officer had a duty to scrutinise the nomination papers, Naidu argued, an allegedly improper acceptance of a nomination would not by itself justify intervention unless it had materially affected the election.

He pointed out that no objection had been raised by the Congress during scrutiny, and that Rath had described herself as being over 60 years of age. “It is not their case that they pointed it out and we ignored [it],” he submitted, adding that the statutory scheme was intended to avoid uncertainty in the electoral process.

The court, however, observed that the statute required the returning officer to decide objections, and questioned the contention that a third party could not raise an issue concerning the scrutiny process. After hearing the parties, it reserved its order.

Why the Case Matters

The dispute engages a recurring question in election law: the scope of a returning officer’s duty to scrutinise a candidate’s nomination and affidavit, and the consequences of an alleged defect in the particulars a candidate must disclose. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence beginning with the Association for Democratic Reforms line of cases, candidates must file an affidavit (Form 26) disclosing details including age, educational qualifications, assets and any criminal antecedents, and a false declaration can attract consequences. The law, however, draws a distinction between defects that go to a candidate’s very eligibility and those that do not an improper acceptance of a nomination ordinarily voids an election only where it can be shown to have materially affected the result, which is the crux of the respondents’ argument in this case.

The case is also a reminder of the strict timelines that structure the electoral process. Objections to a nomination are to be raised at the scrutiny stage, and a challenge to an election ordinarily lies through an election petition after the poll rather than through a writ petition mid-process considerations the court appeared alive to when it asked whether calling for records at this stage might itself disturb the process. With the verdict reserved and the bypoll just days away, the High Court’s ruling will indicate how far, and at what stage, a court will go to examine an alleged affidavit discrepancy said not to affect a candidate’s eligibility. Nothing has been decided, and the allegations remain to be adjudicated.