Opposing Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the BJP candidate, argued that the rejection of a nomination paper does not involve the violation of a fundamental right and, therefore, a petition under Article 32 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution is not maintainable in the Supreme Court. Rohatgi submitted that Article 329 (of constitution) creates a complete bar on judicial intervention during the electoral process through Articles 32 and 226 (High Court’s writ jurisdiction). “The entire gamut of elections from beginning to end is outside the scope of Articles 32 and 226,” he argued, adding that even an allegedly improper rejection of a nomination paper must be challenged only through an election petition before the Election Tribunal. Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill and the Kullu Swamy case, Rohatgi contended that “there can be no interference because of Article 329, it has to go to the Tribunal, whether the rejection is right or wrong. There is a remedy for every wrong done.” During the hearing, owing to a technical glitch, Rohatgi’s arguments made through VC mode came to a pause. At this stage, Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta addressed the Court. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, objected to Mehtas’ participation, remarking, “The Government wants to assist the candidate.” Singhvi also objected to submissions made by the counsel representing the ECI and submitted that ordinarily the Election Commission does not step into the shoes of a candidate to advance arguments in such disputes. The Court also demurred on the SGI’s and ECI’s interference while the Court was hearing submissions by the opposing BJP candidate.