Kochi: UDF candidate and Ernakulam district panchayat vice-president Elsie George has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the Returning Officer’s rejection of her nomination to contest from 26th division, Kadamakudy. The writ petition, filed on Monday evening, requested the court to set aside the rejection and direct officials to accept her nomination, which she claims was dismissed on “wrong and unsustainable” grounds. 

The rejection during scrutiny on Saturday left the UDF without a candidate in the division, as no dummy nomination had been filed. 

According to the petition, George submitted her nomination papers on November 21 at around 1.30 pm, as per the election schedule issued by the District Election Officer. The petition states that election officials checked the electoral roll numbers of the proposer and raised no objections at the time of submission. A statutory receipt acknowledging the nomination was issued the same day.

However, her original proposer, Himalal, had been listed in earlier electoral rolls under Division 26 during the previous election. After realising that Himalal's present ward is Division 27 (Vypin Division) and that the proposer’s details did not match the candidate's division as required, George immediately filed a fresh nomination with a new proposer - Sandeep, a voter from Thandassery in the Kadamakudy division.

As per the petition, she approached the District Collector, who is the Returning Officer, at 2.50 pm on November 21 itself with the fresh nomination. However, the District Collector, who is the Returning Officer, did not permit submitting the nomination at 3.10 pm, alleging a delay of 10 minutes after the deadline of 3pm. 

George’s petition claimed that her first nomination, which was already submitted, was verified with respect to her and the proposer, Himalal’s, electoral roll numbers with corresponding entries in the electoral rolls by the officials on behalf of the Returning Officer. However, George claimed she submitted a fresh petition at 2.50 pm “by way of abundant caution” on information she otherwise received about the disparity in Himalal’s division number.

Based on the already submitted petition, George came for the scrutiny on November 22. But she alleged that she was called only at 11 am instead of the scheduled time of 10 am. She said she was informed then that all her nominations had been rejected on the ground that the proposer “was not from the same division.” She filed an appeal on the same day, but that too was rejected on the next day, November 23.

George contended in her petition that this conclusion is factually incorrect, particularly with regard to her corrected nomination filed with the proposer from the Kadamakudy division.

George, in her petition, claimed that the refusal to accept the fresh nomination at 2.50 pm on November 21 itself, before the respondent had, “resulted in violation of fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice”. She asserted that the Returning Officer failed to consider her corrected submission and did not give her an opportunity to rectify the earlier clerical mismatch before finalising the decision.

The petition also stated that the grounds for rejection were not communicated in writing at the time of scrutiny on November 22, and that George received the written endorsement only on November 24. The delay has resulted in “grave miscarriage of justice”. The delay in receiving the rejection note delayed filing the petition with the HC, George claimed.

She says she filed an appeal the same evening, but it too was rejected the next morning “without proper evaluation” of her documents. 

Calling the rejection “arbitrary” and in violation of principles of natural justice, the petition argued that the officer acted without adequate inquiry and went against the assurances implicit in the earlier verification of electoral roll details. George has sought interim relief to declare the rejection of nomination was “illegal and unsustainable for violation of natural justice” and direct officials to accept her nomination provisionally until the case is decided.

While the petition focuses on alleged procedural failures by the Returning Officer, the UDF has framed the episode as a deliberate attempt to block a “legitimate candidate”. 

Ernakulam DCC president Muhammed Shiyas said the party decided to support George’s legal move after reviewing the sequence of events. He reiterated the UDF’s allegation that George attempted to file the corrected nomination before the 3 pm deadline on November 21, but was not allowed inside the Collector’s chamber in time. 

According to Shiyas, George reached the Collectorate at 2.50 pm but was allowed in only after the deadline. He described the incident as “obstruction” and said the party would seek CCTV footage under the Right to Information Act. “The footage will show what really happened. Her nomination was not rejected on merit but under politically motivated circumstances,” he alleged. 

The court is expected to consider George’s petition on Tuesday.