Dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjiv Sachdeva said under Article 226, it was not maintainable in view of the embargo on court's jurisdiction under Art 329(b) of the Constitution of India and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petitioner contended that the Returning Officer wrongly rejected their nomination papers and also showed preference to the Delhi Chief Minister.
The plea filed through Advocate Viplav Sharma sought direction to officials to make appropriate guidelines and to facilitate the smooth filing of the nomination papers by all candidates from all walks of Indian society.
The petitioner through Advocate Viplav Sharma contended that the judgements were not applicable as the judgments had not noticed Section 100 of the RP Act in its entirety.
He said the petition was not an appropriate remedy as countermanding an election entailed huge costs and inconvenience to stakeholders.
Sharma also stated that till the time an election petition is decided by the Courts, it took 3-4 years.
Anguished by the submissions, the court said, "Bar Council rules prohibit lawyers from becoming a mouthpiece of their client..This is unbecoming of a senior lawyer like you."
The petitioner said their nomination papers were illegally, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally rejected and that they have deprived of their constitutional rights.
( With inputs from IANS )