The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea by the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee that questioned alleged discrepancies between the declared age and the educational particulars in the election affidavit of the BJP’s Nandigram bypoll candidate Hasirani Rath, and the scrutiny of her nomination.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee challenging alleged discrepancies in the election affidavit of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Nandigram bypoll candidate Hasirani Rath [West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee v. Election Commission of India].
The plea was heard by Justice Krishna Rao, who had reserved the order after hearing the parties last week. The reasons recorded by the Court were not available in the reports reviewed by LawChakra, and the written order has not been reviewed.
The case
The Congress alleged a discrepancy between the age declared in Rath’s election affidavit and the year in which she is stated to have passed the Madhyamik (Class 10) examination. According to the petitioner, the affidavit records her age as 61 years while also recording that she passed the Madhyamik examination in 1965, and the two particulars are prima facie inconsistent. It also questioned whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Returning Officer had properly scrutinised the nomination papers.
These are the petitioner’s contentions. LawChakra has not independently verified the affidavit or the candidate’s records, no finding on the accuracy of the particulars has been reported, and the reports reviewed carry no statement from Rath herself.
What the Congress argued
Senior Advocate Ritzu Ghosal, appearing for the Congress, clarified that the party was not seeking the cancellation of Rath’s candidature or any order that would stall the election. He told the Court, “I am not putting a spanner in the works.” He submitted that the challenge concerned the discharge of their statutory duties by the ECI and the Returning Officer, and that the alleged discrepancy was an error apparent that could have been noticed at scrutiny.
The Congress contended that if Rath’s declared age was correct, the educational details in the affidavit needed verification, and that if the educational record was correct, her age would have to be examined. It also acknowledged that it had approached the Court after the statutory scrutiny stage had passed.
What the ECI argued
Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the objection had been raised only after the period for challenging the nomination papers had expired, and that the Congress had raised no objection during scrutiny. He argued that the alleged discrepancy did not affect Rath’s eligibility to contest, and that an allegedly improper acceptance of a nomination would not justify intervention unless it had materially affected the election. He added that the statutory scheme is meant to avoid uncertainty in the electoral process.
The Court’s questions at the hearing
When the plea first came up, Justice Rao asked the petitioner what relief it was seeking. During the later hearing, the Court asked whether calling for the election records at this stage could itself affect the electoral process. It also 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, before reserving its order.
The outcome and the bypoll
On Tuesday, the Court dismissed the plea. The Nandigram Assembly bypoll is scheduled for October 6, with counting on October 9.
Why it matters
The dispute turned on timing and on the limits of court intervention in an ongoing election. Election law channels objections to nominations through the scrutiny stage and, after the result, through an election petition, and both sides argued the case within that framework: the Congress framed its plea as a question about the duties of the election machinery, while the ECI stressed that the objection came too late and did not touch eligibility. Which of these considerations weighed with the Court will be clear only from the written order.
The dismissal does not settle whether the particulars in the affidavit are accurate, and no view is expressed here on that question or on the merits of either side’s contentions. The order also does not, as far as the reports show, address what remedies may be open to the petitioner after the poll.
Case Title: West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee v. Election Commission of India
Bench: Justice Krishna Rao, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Ritzu Ghosal appeared for the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, and Senior Advocate DS Naidu appeared for the Election Commission of India.