Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court may be resorted to when available remedies are exhausted [U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 264]. This is essentially a ‘rule of policy, convenience and discretion’; it’s not a ‘compulsion’ [Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Harbanslal Sahnia, (2003) 2 SCC 107]. Supreme Court in Shrimath Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 992 of 2019], however, did not ‘appreciate’ how ‘judicial hierarchy’ was ‘leapfrogged’.
“We had heard the matter at some length. Since a substantial amount of time has passed in the meanwhile, and to ensure that the same exercise need not be repeated before High Court, we are left with no option but to hear these cases on merits.”
“This Court has repeatedly held, a person cannot be barred from contesting elections if he is otherwise qualified to contest the same. This legal position is vividly illustrated by the Constitution Bench in G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam, (1972) 3 SCC 717.
In dealing with the question as to whether a Non-Graduate was qualified to be a candidate for the Graduate Constituency for the Legislative Council, when such a requirement was not prescribed either by the Constitution or Parliament, this Court reversed the Judgment of the Madras High Court which required the candidate to be a Graduate. This Court held, when the law does not require such a qualification, it cannot be imposed by Courts.”
– Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 992 of 2019].