The Scope of Judicial Review in Electoral Matters: Constitutional Accountability and Electoral Autonomy

Divyansh Kulshrestha; Namdev Singh

The Scope of Judicial Review in Electoral Matters: Constitutional Accountability and Electoral Autonomy

Author(s)	Mr. Divyansh Kulshrestha, Mr. Namdev Singh
Country	India
Abstract	Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India diverts challenges against the elections into election-petition procedure, which safeguards the continuity of elections from litigation, which can scuttle a scheduled poll. This principle was established in N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer and also reiterated in later cases, but is challenging in cases where the nomination of a candidate is done away with and the election is essentially concluded before there is heard from a post-election remedy. This paper takes the centre of discussion to be Supreme Court's Meenakshi Natarajan v Election Commission of India case (2026) to consider the tension between electoral autonomy and timely legal accountability. It discusses the provisions of the Constitution (Articles 324-329), the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the judicial interpretation of nomination stage controversies involving the functional test put forward by the Election Commission of India in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar. It also raises the issue of the institutional responsibility of the Electoral Commission and makes a slightly limited comparison with the reluctance of the United States to extend last-minute electoral relief. The paper will suggest that the post-election petition is still a constitutionally significant process, but it might be of little practical utility where the lost chance to challenge cannot be recovered. It suggests that nomination decisions should be subject to a strictly framed, time-limited, record-based review, a response to representations, and reasonable restrictions on delay, and calls for the retention of the ordinary election-petition remedy. Importantly, the proposal—and its ability to survive Article 329(b)—must be carefully analyzed constitutionally, because mere legislation is not enough to invalidate the existing ban.
Keywords	Article 329(b); judicial review; Election Commission of India; nomination scrutiny; election petition; electoral autonomy; Meenakshi Natarajan.
Published In	Volume 8, Issue 5, September-October 2026
Published On	2026-10-14

View / Download PDF File

About IJFMR Fees & Payment Current Issue Publication Archive	Submit Research Paper Track Submission Status Publication Guidelines Publication Ethics Peer Review & Plagiarism	Join as a Reviewer Editors & Reviewers Reviewer Referral Program Get Reviewer Membership Certi.	Website/Journal Policies Usage Policy Content Policies Privacy Policy

Contact Us		+91-9687-828-838	editor@ijfmr.com

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal

The Scope of Judicial Review in Electoral Matters: Constitutional Accountability and Electoral Autonomy

Share this