High Court of Karnataka Reserves Order on Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Nomination for KSCA President Due to Arrears. The Core Issue Is Whether Arrears Paid Before Scrutiny Removes the Embargo Under the Association's Rules.

Challenge to rejection of nomination for the post of President of Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) on the ground of arrears.

Petitioner seeks certiorari to quash the order dated 24.11.2025 rejecting his nomination, mandamus to declare him as valid candidate and direct election process, and declaration that clause 3B(D)(b) does not apply to individuals contesting for office bearers under rule 6(A)(i) with its proviso.

The petitioner's nomination for the post of President of KSCA was rejected by the Electoral Officer on 24.11.2025 on the ground that the Institutional Member (Deccan Herald and Prajavani Sports Club) had arrears to KSCA, despite the arrears having been paid at 3:06 pm on the same day before the scrutiny commenced at 5:30 pm.

Whether the Electoral Officer erred in rejecting the nomination on the ground of arrears when the arrears had been cleared before the scrutiny of nomination papers. Whether Rule 3B(D)(b) of the KSCA rules imposes a disqualification or a temporary embargo that ceases upon payment of arrears. Whether the relevant date for determining disqualification is the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, as laid down in K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan. Whether the provisions of By-law 6 regarding disqualification exclude arrears as a ground for rejection of nomination.

The petitioner contended that the arrears were paid at 3:06 pm before the nomination was taken up for scrutiny at 5:30 pm, so there were no arrears at the time of scrutiny. Rule 3B(D)(b) provides an embargo only “as long as they are in arrears”; therefore, once the arrears were paid, the embargo ceased to apply. The embargo under Rule 3B(D)(b) is not a disqualification; By-law (6) separately provides for disqualifications and does not list arrears as a disqualification, so the nomination could not be rejected as a disqualification. Relying on K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, (2005)1 SCC 754, the question of qualification/disqualification must be determined as on the date of scrutiny; since the arrears were cleared before scrutiny, there was no disqualification on the decisive date. The decision in Ramesh Rajaram Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division and Others, 1995 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal 208, supports the view that payment of defaulted amount before scrutiny removes the disqualification.

Rule 3B(D)(b): In case of a Life Member whose any payment of more than Rs.100/- is in arrears and a Founder Institutional member whose subscription or payment of more than Rs.100/- is in arrears, such Life members or Founder Institutional Members shall not be allowed to attend/contest or vote at any meeting or be allowed to enjoy the privileges of the Association as long as they are in arrears. The correct position of law is that nomination of a person disqualified within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of RPA on the date of scrutiny of nominations under Section 36(2)(a) shall be liable to be rejected as invalid… The question of qualification or disqualification of a returned candidate … has to be determined by reference to the date of his election… Whether a nomination was improperly accepted shall have to be determined … by reference to the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination…

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 27.11.2025, the matter was heard and reserved for orders. The order was pronounced on 29.11.2025.

• Constitution of India: Article 226
• Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960: