Article 329

Article 329 of the Constitution of India establishes a constitutional bar on judicial intervention in electoral matters during the conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. This provision ensures that elections are carried out smoothly and without disruption, while also providing a specific legal mechanism for resolving disputes arising from elections.
The Article reflects the framers’ intention to maintain the autonomy of the electoral process, prevent unnecessary judicial delays, and uphold the integrity and continuity of democratic governance.

Text of Article 329

“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.”

Structure and Scope of Article 329

Article 329 consists of two clauses, each addressing different aspects of judicial restraint in electoral matters.

Clause (a): Non-Justiciability of Delimitation and Seat Allotment

• The validity of laws made under Articles 327 and 328—which relate to delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats—cannot be challenged in any court of law.
• Once delimitation or seat allocation has been finalised, courts cannot entertain any challenge to their validity.
• This ensures that the boundaries of constituencies and seat distribution remain stable and are not subject to legal disputes during elections.

Clause (b): Challenge to Elections Only Through Election Petitions

• Elections to Parliament and State Legislatures can be questioned only through election petitions filed before an authority designated by law.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1951, enacted under this Article, specifies that election petitions are to be presented to the High Courts and outlines the grounds, procedures, and timelines for adjudicating them.
• No other form of judicial intervention—such as writs or injunctions—can halt or question an ongoing election process.

Together, these clauses ensure that the judiciary’s role is limited to post-election adjudication, preserving the uninterrupted functioning of the democratic process.

Constitutional Objective

The inclusion of Article 329 serves multiple constitutional purposes:

1. Continuity of Elections: Prevents courts from delaying or halting elections due to litigation, thereby ensuring timely constitution of representative bodies.
2. Electoral Stability: Protects the electoral process from fragmentation and interference.
3. Separation of Powers: Maintains a clear division between the functions of the judiciary and the Election Commission.
4. Defined Legal Framework: Ensures that election disputes are resolved through a structured and time-bound process.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions

Together, these provisions form a comprehensive constitutional framework for free, fair, and uninterrupted elections in India.

Legislative Framework

The Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 are the principal legislations enacted under Articles 327 and 328, and they give effect to the provisions of Article 329:

• The 1950 Act governs the preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation, and allocation of seats.
• The 1951 Act provides for the conduct of elections, disqualification of candidates, and the resolution of disputes through election petitions.

These Acts operationalise Article 329(b), creating a specialised legal mechanism for challenging elections.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Judgments

1. N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952)

• Facts: The petitioner sought to challenge the rejection of his nomination papers before the election was completed.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the term “election” encompasses the entire process from notification to result declaration.
• The Court ruled that no election-related matter can be challenged before completion of the election process, except through an election petition after results are declared.
• Significance: Established the principle that judicial interference during elections is constitutionally barred.

2. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)

• The Court reaffirmed the autonomy of the Election Commission under Article 324 and clarified that Article 329 protects the entire electoral process from pre-election judicial challenges.

3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

• The Supreme Court ruled that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and while Article 329 bars judicial interference during elections, it does not oust post-election judicial review through election petitions.

4. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)

• The Court upheld Parliament’s authority under Articles 327–329 to regulate electoral procedures, including changes in voting methods (e.g., the open ballot system for Rajya Sabha elections).
• Reiterated that courts cannot intervene in the conduct of elections while they are underway.

Scope and Implications of Article 329

1. Finality of Delimitation:
   • Challenges to constituency boundaries or seat allocations are barred once delimitation is completed and notified.
2. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Election Petitions:
   • Election disputes must be raised only through election petitions, ensuring that election results are contested within a structured, post-election framework.
3. Restriction on Pre-Election Litigation:
   • Courts cannot issue interim orders or injunctions that could stall elections.
4. Balance Between Judicial Review and Democratic Continuity:
   • Article 329 does not eliminate judicial scrutiny; it defers it until after the election to ensure that democratic institutions are not paralysed by litigation.

Significance of Article 329

1. Ensures Smooth Conduct of Elections:
   • Prevents disruptions due to pre-election court cases.
2. Strengthens Democratic Processes:
   • Upholds the continuity and legitimacy of elected bodies.
3. Protects Electoral Integrity:
   • Avoids manipulation or delay in elections through judicial interventions.
4. Upholds Separation of Powers:
   • Assigns election management to the Election Commission and dispute resolution to the judiciary only after elections are completed.

Limitations Imposed by Article 329

Despite its importance, Article 329 does not make electoral laws or actions immune from scrutiny altogether.

• Post-election review: Courts can review elections through election petitions.
• Judicial review of laws: The Supreme Court retains the power to examine whether election laws violate the basic structure of the Constitution, such as in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain.
• Administrative fairness: Election-related administrative decisions by the Election Commission remain subject to limited review under Article 324, once elections are completed.

Challenges and Contemporary Issues

• Delay in Election Petitions: Protracted adjudication of election disputes often undermines the effectiveness of judicial remedies.
• Emerging Electoral Reforms: Issues such as electronic voting, campaign finance, and misuse of official machinery require updated legislative and judicial interpretation.
• Public Interest Litigations: Increasing use of PILs related to elections sometimes tests the boundaries of Article 329’s non-interference principle.