Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, June 10: A Congress delegation which called on the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Wednesday on the rejection of the nomination papers of its Madhya Pradesh candidate for Rajya Sabha sought a review of the decision calling it unfair and legally questionable.
The delegation included top party leaders, including K C Venugopal, Randeep Surjewala, Jairam Ramesh, Deepa Dasmunshi, Vivek Tankha and Abhishek Singhvi, along with Meenakshi Natarajan.
Speaking to the media, senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a noted Supreme Court advocate, who was part of the delegation, said the party made a detailed representation before the poll body. He asserted that the returning officer’s order was legally untenable and based on a complete misreading of the law.
He argued that the rejection was based on issues related to Form 26 and claimed there was no valid criminal case or disclosure requirement that justified such an action. He also said the decision, in his view, affected fairness in the electoral process and created an uneven playing field.
However, officials from the Election Commission maintained that deficiencies in Form 26 cannot be ignored.
Mr Singhvi further stated that the delegation requested an urgent reconsideration, especially since the matter came up on the day of withdrawal of nominations, leaving limited time for correction or review. He described the decision as unjust and urged the poll body to correct what he called a serious error.
Mr Singhvi said, ‘All that Ms Natarajan received was a notice from a court, on a private complaint, [asking] why cognisance shouldn’t be taken.” He said there was no criminal case at all, and the Returning Officer in Madhya Pradesh erroneously claimed it to be a criminal case.
“It’s a mistake where two plus two is added to make seven,” Mr Singhvi said, adding that if at all the court takes cognisance, then the court will have to frame charges and at that stage, Ms Natarajan will have to mention the case in her affidavit. Mr Singhvi argued before the Commission that it has a reservoir of powers to correct a wrong decision and requested that the order of rejection be withdrawn.
Meanwhile, Mr Venugopal posted on X that an urgent meeting of Congress general secretaries and in-charges has been convened by party president Mallikarjun Kharge in Delhi on Thursday in view of the current political developments.
The Congress accused the Election Commission of showing bias and not following proper procedure in handling the nomination process. Her nomination was rejected on objections filed by the BJP which claimed that there were inconsistencies in her nomination papers and that she had not fully disclosed important information, including a case filed against her.
Following the rejection of her nomination, the BJP’s third candidate, Mahesh Kewat, is now expected to win unopposed and the BJP is set to secure all the three seats from MP at the expense of the Congress which was in a position to secure one.
The BJP MP and spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi alleged that the Congress intentionally submitted an incomplete form as it could foresee an inevitable defeat for Ms Natarajan.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trivedi raised questions over the submission of Natarajan’s nomination papers, asking why she did not disclose a pending case in a Telangana court. He further questioned that if the case had already been closed, why she had not obtained a written statement confirming its closure.
Trivedi said a woman worker from Telangana had filed a case against a party leader in 2025 and that Natarajan was also named in the complaint. From a legal standpoint, he said, every candidate is required to disclose whether any case is pending against them. He added that if the case had been closed, that fact should also have been disclosed.
The kind of politics the Congress party is engaging in following the rejection of its Rajya Sabha candidate’s nomination in Madhya Pradesh truly exposes the party’s intentions and its internal state of affairs to the nation…. Congress have a government in Telangana, why didn’t they provide a written statement confirming that this case has been closed? Why didn’t the Congress candidate or the Congress party field a backup candidate? Did the Congress—foreseeing inevitable defeat—deliberately filled out the form in such a way that their candidacy would be rejected….” said Trivedi.
Natarajan’s nomination for the third Rajya Sabha seat from MP was rejected by the Returning Officer (RO). It was stated that, after examining the available documents, it was found that Natarajan had submitted an incomplete affidavit by not mentioning a court complaint in Form 26, which was submitted along with her nomination papers.
But while the rejection of her nomination by returning officer Arvind Sharma has given a dramatic twist to the Rajya Sabha elections due on June 18, the issue has also exposed internal feud in the Congress as how the BJP got hold of papers related to the alleged case against Meenakshi Natarajan that has been “pending” in Telangana. The BJP claimed it an internal Congress sabotage against its own candidate.
Senior BJP leader and state Cabinet Minister Kailash Vijayvargiya set the cat among political pigeons by hinting that the papers against Natarajan were leaked from within the Congress. “Who provided us with the documents? You can understand the state of the Congress party from this. We are receiving documents from Telangana where they are in power,” Vijayvargiya said.
He went a step further, suggesting that the BJP may have received help from the Congress itself. “We must have received the information from people within the Congress,” he remarked. It’s not just the BJP parading the “internal sabotage” theory, opposition BRS in Telangana also blamed Congress’s “internal power struggle” in the state behind the leak of the case and rejection of Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination. Meenakshi Natarajan is the Congress in-charge of Telangana.
“Natarajan had previously opposed Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s dream projects, including MUSI beautification and other controversial moves such as Khammam Demolition & University of Hyderabad deforestation, leaving the state government embarrassed,” said BRS leader M Krishank.
According to the BJP sources, the documents did not come through a mysterious Congress leak but through a planned political channel. Telangana BJP President Ramchander Rao is learnt to have provided Madhya Pradesh BJP President Hemant Khandelwal with documents related to Meenakshi Natarajan, including details of court cases and legal notices.
These documents were sent to Bhopal last Monday. Once the papers reached the Madhya Pradesh BJP leadership, the party moved fast. Sources said Khandelwal briefed Chief Minister Dr Mohan Yadav. The BJP then finalised its legal strategy and entrusted the task of arguing the objection before the Returning Officer to party leader Rahul Kothari and former judge Rohit Arya. What followed was a sharp legal and political challenge that completely altered the dynamics of the Rajya Sabha contest.
The Congress has strongly questioned not only the objection but also the manner in which the proceedings unfolded. Congress leader and lawyer JP Dhanopia objected to the presence of retired High Court judge Rohit Arya during the nomination scrutiny process. “In what capacity was he present there? He was neither a candidate, nor an agent, nor an authorised party to the election process. There are also serious questions regarding the procedure followed,” Dhanopia said.
The controversy stems from a 2022 matter in Telangana, where a woman had accused a Congress leader of harassment and threats. The woman alleged that despite her complaint, the Congress leadership failed to take strict action against Reddy. According to the complainant, she had also raised the matter before Meenakshi Natarajan, who was then associated with the Congress organisation in Telangana.
The Congress, however, argued that Natarajan was not an accused in any FIR and that no criminal case had been registered against her. Therefore, the party maintained, there was no legal requirement to mention the matter in the nomination affidavit.
