Chhattisgarh HC upholds rejection of nomination in Sitapur seat, citing disqualification due to subsisting government contract

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 260 | 2026:CGHC:17589

April 17, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the rejection of a candidate’s nomination for the 2023 Assembly elections from the Sitapur (ST) constituency, ruling that the Returning Officer acted correctly in disqualifying him under election law due to a subsisting government contract.

In a detailed judgment delivered on April 17, 2026, Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal dismissed an election petition filed by Munna Lal Toppo, who had challenged the validity of the rejection of his nomination papers.

Toppo had intended to contest the 2023 Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly elections and submitted multiple nomination papers in October 2023. However, during scrutiny, an objection was raised by another candidate alleging that Toppo was a government contractor engaged in works under the Jal Jeevan Mission, making him ineligible under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Acting on the objection, the Returning Officer sought a factual report from the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), which confirmed that Toppo had ongoing contracts with the government. Based on this, his nomination was rejected on October 31, 2023. Subsequently, another candidate was declared elected from the constituency.

Before the High Court, Toppo argued that his contracts were not directly with the “appropriate Government” but with entities like the District Water and Sanitation Mission and Village Water and Sanitation Committee. He contended that these bodies did not fall within the statutory definition required to trigger disqualification.

The Court, however, found this argument unconvincing. It noted that Toppo had himself declared in his nomination papers and supporting affidavit that he had subsisting government contracts. These admissions, the Court held, constituted strong and binding evidence.

The judgment emphasized that under Section 9A, a candidate is disqualified if they have an active contract with the government for execution of works. The Court reiterated that such provisions must be strictly applied, but where the facts clearly establish the existence of a subsisting contract, disqualification follows.

Importantly, the Court also observed that election petitions are original proceedings, giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce additional evidence. However, Toppo failed to bring any material to prove that the contracts were not with the State Government in the legal sense.

The Court further highlighted that the burden of proof lies on the election petitioner to demonstrate that the Returning Officer’s decision was incorrect. In this case, that burden was not discharged.

Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the Returning Officer had conducted a proper summary inquiry and relied on both documentary evidence and the petitioner’s own admissions. As a result, the rejection of the nomination was found to be legally valid.

The ruling reinforces the principle that candidates must be free from conflicting financial interests with the government to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.

Case Reference : Election Petition No.1 of 2024, Munna Lal Toppo vs Chhattisgarh Election Commission & Ors.; Counsels: for the Petitioner : Dr. Jitendra Kishor Mehta and Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocates; for Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate; for Respondent No.4; Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate.