Article 329.
Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
(a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment
of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or
article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;
(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.
Article 329 bars the jurisdiction of Courts in respect of certain electoral matters. Clause (a)
provides that the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment
of seats to such constituencies cannot be called in question in any court. Clause (b) bars
jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain disputes relating to elections to Houses of
Parliament or State Legislature.
K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan: The Supreme Court has held that article 329(b) which
bars interference of courts in electoral matters does not come into play in a case which
falls under articles 191 and 193 which provides for disqualification of membership and
penalty for sitting and voting when disqualified and the whole of election process is over. In
such case, the High Court can interfere under article 226 and declare that he was not
entitled to sit in the State Assembly.
The Constitution (19th Amendment) Act, 1966, abolished the jurisdiction of Election
Tribunal over election disputes. The Amendment has vested this power in the High Courts.
The effect of vesting the power in the High Courts was to expedite decision in election
disputes
About Article 329(b):
Enshrined in Part XV of the Constitution, articles 324-329 specifically discuss elections.
While Article 324 gives the poll panel powers to direct and control elections, Article 329,
which has two clauses, concerns itself with the role of the judiciary in electoral matters.
Article 329(a) says the “judiciary is not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of laws
relating to the boundaries of electoral districts or the allocation of seats.
Article 329(b) as amended by the Constitution (19 th Amendment) Act, 1966, provides that
notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, no election to either House of Parliament or
the Legislature of a State shall be called into 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.
It stipulates that election-related inquiries are exclusively addressed through election
petitions presented to the authority designated by that law.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951, furthers this clause as it empowers the high
courts to hear and decide election petitions.
A decision in such petitions can be challenged in the Supreme Court (SC).
SC Rulings:
In the 1952 Ponnuswamy judgment (Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal), the SC
held that the word “election” in Article 329(b) connotes the entire electoral process
commencing with the issue of the notification calling the election and culminating in the
declaration of result, and that the electoral process once started could not be interfered
with at any intermediary stage by courts.
The SC In K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan (1999) determined that Article 329(b) is
inapplicable if the matter pertains to Articles 191 and 193, which deal with
disqualifications and penalties related to parliamentary and legislative assembly
membership, respectively.
