Article 329 of Indian Constitution bars judicial review of election validity by courts concerning both parliamentary and state legislative elections; this bar is not absolute but subject to the limitations of exception. Article 329(a) of Indian Constitution shields laws formulated under Articles 327 and 328 from judicial questioning. Furthermore, Article 329(b) of Indian Constitution explicitly mandates that any challenge to an election must adhere to a prescribed process, primarily through an "election petition." Explore other Constitutional Articles.

Article 329 of Indian Constitution

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 the House or either House of 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.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders."

Download the Free PDF on Article 329 of Indian Constitution

Article 329 of Indian Constitution is interpreted as a constitutional provision that was made to ensure uninterrupted conduct of elections by limiting the scope of judicial intervention. 

Clause (a) Article 329 of the Indian Constitution lays down the laws relating to election disputes, primarily delimitation of constituencies, or allotment of seats or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328 of Indian Constitution shall not be called into question in any court of law.

Clause (b) Article 329 of Indian Constitution provides that election to either house of parliament or state legislature can be called into question only through election petition as per the law made by the appropriate legislature.

Article 329 of Indian Constitution Evolution

Article 329 of Indian Constitution has evolved through various constitutional amendments for it to be a provision that provided for a robust mechanism safeguarding the integrity and timely completion of the electoral process.

• E N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) played a crucial role in interpreting clause (b) of Article 329 of Indian Constitution, establishing the entire outline of the election process and that it starts right from notification and ends after the declaration of results.
• The Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966: This amendment addressed clause (b) of Article 329 of Indian Constitution, stating that election-related inquiries would be only addressed through election petitions presented to the competent authority.
• Article 329A (Omitted): The Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 inserted Article 329A of Indian Constitution, which made special provisions regarding the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker. However, this article was later omitted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, restoring the uniform application of Article 329 of Indian Constitution to all elections.

 Article 329 of Indian Constitution has been interpreted in various landmark judgments by Indian judiciary in various cases; these cases uphold the bar on interference in electoral matters during the election process while also marking limited exceptions of constitutional violations that can be questioned through an election petition, some of these cases are mentioned hereinafter:

• N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (AIR 1952): The Supreme Court held that the term "election" in Clause (b) Article 329 of Indian Constitution comprises the entire process from the notification calling for elections until the declaration of results. 
• Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955): In this case, it was held that Article 329 of Indian Constitution restricts the broad power of High Court given under Article 226 and mandated election petition as a sole remedy for challenging the elections, this judgment also clarified that under exceptional circumstances, High courts can still entertain writ petitions, such as when electoral law is itself challenged.
• Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India (1985): This case differentiated the preparation of electoral rolls as a process prior to the actual election. Mostly covered under the ambit of Article 329 of Indian Constitution, the Court observed that challenges to the electoral rolls might be entertained in certain circumstances if they do not hinder the election schedule.
• K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan (AIR 1999): The Supreme Court clarified that the bar under Article 329(b) of Indian Constitution would not apply when the issue pertains to the disqualification of a member under Articles 191 and 193 of the Constitution, as these are matters separate and different from the election process.
• Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000): This Court, in this case, reiterated that for article 329 of Indian Constitution once the election process has begun, the courts should not intervene during the ongoing process. The proper course for any grievance related to the conduct of elections is to file an election petition after the declaration of results.

Conclusion

Article 329 of Indian Constitution protects laws formulated under Articles 327 and 328 from judicial intervention. This further reinstates legislative independence in forming the electoral process. The underlying rationale of the restriction that Article 329 of the Indian Constitution puts is to prevent unwarranted intervention by the Judiciary in the electoral process.